Lord Collins of Highbury
Main Page: Lord Collins of Highbury (Labour - Life peer)Trade Union Bill
Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts(8 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments in this group were due to be debated on Monday night. I recognise that we have quite a few amendments and clauses to deal with in this composite group. The Minister has said that she is in listening mode. These amendments are designed to probe and query the reasons and justifications for these measures. Clauses 4 and 5 are definitely not in the Conservative Party manifesto, and it is arguable that Clause 6 is. We look forward to what the Minister has to say and to her answers to our questions.
As I have said in debates on other clauses, the Bill does very little for trade union members or to promote good industrial relations. What is does is place greater regulatory burdens on unions and hinder the speedy and amicable settlement of disputes. Today, we seek evidence to justify change and of whether alternatives were considered. Our concerns about these clauses are that the evidence on the problems is non-existent and the rationale for legislative measures does not stack up. We would also like the Government to be as expansive as they can be on what they intend to include in, and exclude from, secondary legislation. The Minister will need to explain the Government’s stated expectation of these measures and the millions of pounds of additional cost to trade union members and trade unions.
The impact assessment suggests that these measures and Clauses 7 and 8 are expected to reduce strikes by 5% and contribute £1.2 million to UK output. In a series of measures that are more likely to prolong disputes, that a pretty strong claim. Will the Minister outline how this will make such a difference and whether the measures are proportionate?
In relation to Clause 4, trade unions need to be clear about what they are asking their members to vote for so that they can make a fully informed decision, but there is no evidence that they are not clear under the current arrangements, or a jot of evidence that members or employers feel unable to grasp the issue in the ballot. Unions are required to ask members what type of industrial action they are willing to take part in; for example, strike action, action short of a strike, a work to rule and so on. The employer receives a copy of the voting paper.
Some employers try to frustrate the ballot by legal challenge and injunctions and with threats and costs. Some firms can be very inventive, creating a web of different companies to demonstrate that the complex intercompany arrangements mean that multiple ballots need to take place. The management is not obliged to provide any data to help clarify the company delineations and the members concerned. That speaks to one of the problems with the Bill, which is about balance in measures on management and its responsibilities and requirements. When we tried to rebalance these measures, we were told they were out of scope and not to do with trade unions. Is this view shared by the Minister?
In another place, Nick Boles’s entire evidence base for Clause 4 was that he had two such ballots and did not understand what they meant, and that he felt the use of the words “redundancy” and “pay” was insufficient. This shows absolutely no understanding of the context in which staff are notified of redundancies, in keeping with statute, or how pay is negotiated. I know that the Minister has practical experience of this, and I hope that she can clarify his words today. I suspect that there were fewer unionised staff in Policy Exchange than there are in Tesco, which has a fully unionised and recognised workforce.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, just said that the legislation should contain what a reasonable trade unionist would expect to see on the ballot paper. For my part, I am having difficulty understanding the criticisms that have been made of Clause 4. There is some substance to them, but the clause is not “provocative and narrow-minded”, as the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, suggested. Surely, if one is to have a ballot that will be of vital legal significance in identifying whether the union and its members will be immune from legal action, it is perfectly reasonable to provide that the voting paper must give those who are voting basic information about what they are voting for.
Three items are mentioned in Clause 4. First, the voting paper must include an indication,
“of the matter or matters in issue in the trade dispute to which the proposed industrial action relates”.
That seems to me perfectly reasonable. The criticism may be justified in the words “reasonably detailed”. I understand the criticism of those words because there is a danger that they may lead to legal difficulties. If those words are removed, what is the objection to the person voting being told expressly and clearly the matters in dispute that he or she is being asked to vote on?
Secondly, where the voting paper,
“contains a question about taking part in industrial action short of a strike, the type or types of industrial action must be specified”.
What is wrong with that? It is a perfectly reasonable basic requirement. Thirdly,
“the voting paper must indicate the period or periods within which the industrial action or … each type of industrial action is expected to take place”.
Again, the reasonable trade unionist who is being asked to vote surely needs to know the length of time for which the industrial action is going to take place. Concerns have been expressed that these provisions may lead the trade union to put in, as was said, the kitchen sink. I should have thought that any trade union that did that would be very badly advised indeed, because it would be likely to confuse the members and far less likely to satisfy the statutory thresholds.
I am particularly puzzled by Amendment 27, which would provide that these new provisions,
“do not apply to any ballot where there is an agreement between the employer and trade union”.
Surely that leaves out the interests of the employee. There may well be an agreement between the employer and trade union, but it may not work to the benefit of individual employees. Therefore, I think there is some force in some of the criticism, particularly of the language in new subsection (2B)—“reasonably detailed” —but the criticisms are very substantially overblown.
Lord Collins of Highbury
May I ask the noble Lord about that “reasonably detailed”? My noble friend referred to the kitchen sink, but a pay claim may have several items within it, perhaps as many as 20, some more important to some groups within a firm than to others. There is a balance to be struck. The trade union balances that in negotiations and often has to choose, but of course the trade union is representative of those employees; it is not an outside body. At the end of the day, it is those employees who have the vote.
My problem with “reasonably detailed” is what you leave in and what you leave out. When I was a trade union official and we faced the possibility of a legal case—the possibility that we would be challenged—the tendency was to say, “Let’s put in the kitchen sink to make sure that we do not get it wrong”.
Lord Pannick
That is precisely why I expressed my understanding and support for the suggestion that the words “reasonably detailed” are unnecessary and may well be counterproductive. I see the force of that criticism, but only that criticism. Let me add that the noble Lord, Lord Lea, was concerned that this would require the trade union to put in its demands; it would not. What it requires is that the voting paper must indicate the matter or matters at issue. If we take out “reasonably detailed”, I cannot see the objection to a ballot paper indicating—not setting out in detail, but indicating—the matter or matters in dispute. That seems perfectly reasonable.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I am afraid I do not agree with the noble Lord. Having the necessary information on the ballot paper is important. You cannot always rely on the press to give you all the information you need to know.
Lord Collins of Highbury
The Minister has referred to a specific case. One of the problems with the impact assessment is that it does not detail what the impact of these proposals will be, particularly in the private sector. The problem with the measures being proposed is that they seem to stem from specific actions in the public sector. But if she does take the British Airways situation, has she assessed what the unintended consequences could be of a union specifying such things in the ballot? She has failed to mention that in the private sector the vast majority of industrial action ballots result in speedy negotiations and a speedy settlement. The problem with putting this information on the ballot paper is that it becomes so specific and public before those speedy negotiations can take place.
I wonder what British Airways would think of the Minister’s proposal that Unite puts on an industrial action ballot, “We will close British Airways down over Christmas”. I wonder what British Airways would say to the Minister—because I know what it would think. Even before the result of the ballot is known and even before there is any suggestion of industrial action, most people will be cancelling their bookings, costing British Airways a substantial sum of money. Is that what she is proposing?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I think that the noble Lord makes the argument for the Bill: trying to bring in a greater degree of clarity. I have given an example, which I think is a good one. Perhaps I might proceed.
The approach proposed in Amendment 27, which puzzled the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, requires agreement with the employer and could result in too much time and effort being spent on trying to agree the wording on the voting paper, instead of trying to resolve the dispute. I think that this is common ground. Trade unions will generally want to maximise the possibility of achieving the proposed thresholds and to have clarity and certainty about who is entitled to vote, which is the subject of Amendments 29 and 30. I reassure noble Lords that the law already protects trade unions against challenge over insignificant breaches of the balloting rules.
For example, many of the provisions in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 on balloting are subject to a “reasonableness” requirement. A union cannot be held to account for trifling errors when it conducts a ballot. Sections 226A and 234A require that the lists and figures supplied in the ballot and strike notices must be,
“as accurate as is reasonably practicable in the light of the information in the possession of the union at the time when it complies”.
Section 227 confers entitlement to vote,
“to all the members … who it is reasonable at the time of the ballot for the union to believe will be induced”,
to strike.
In addition, Section 232B provides that a union still complies with the requirements on balloting, even if it has made some error in the process, if,
“the failure is accidental and on a scale which is unlikely to affect the result”.
There is also the case of RMT v Serco, which established the margin of error on which trade unions can rely, thereby adding clarity and certainty around the statutory reasonableness requirement. All of this means that the obligations are not intended to be unduly onerous for unions.
Amendments 29 and 30 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, go further by allowing the union to import a “reasonable belief” into what is a trade dispute, so removing the current objective test to determine whether a matter constitutes a trade dispute. This would allow the issue to be opened up to uncertainty, according to what the union believed.
Amendment 31 addresses concerns about unions complying with the requirements to ballot those who are entitled to vote. I draw noble Lords’ attention to the fact that, in future, unions will have more certainty that those who are entitled to vote receive a postal ballot paper. This is because the previous Government introduced a requirement for unions to submit membership audit certificates. This enables unions to demonstrate that they are complying with their duty to keep membership records accurate and up-to-date.
Amendment 32 is duplicative. Section 231 of the 1992 Act already states:
“As soon as is reasonably practicable after the holding of the ballot, the trade union shall take such steps as are reasonably necessary to ensure that all persons entitled to vote”,
are told the result of the ballot. Members and employers will therefore know the number of votes cast and the numbers of individuals answering yes and no. It would not be fair to leave them to work out whether the thresholds were met, especially as the union will have calculated the result in order to know whether it has secured a mandate.
On Clause 6, I agree that it is not sensible under this amendment to go into too much detail on the Certification Officer, since we shall come to that on day 4. But this clause is important because timely provision of good quality information is a key component of ensuring effective regulation and it gives confidence to those affected by disputes. The need to provide such confidence is why annual returns—
Lord Collins of Highbury
I appreciate the Minister’s comments. It is important that she reflects fully on all aspects of this because the unintended consequences could be far worse than the Government expect. The impact assessment is incredibly poor in terms of assessing what effect these proposals could have, particularly on the private sector. But in the light of the Minister’s comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Collins of Highbury
The noble Lord has made a point about the time that this process takes, but we are focusing on industrial action ballots. Anyone listening to our debates would think that industrial relations were simply about industrial action ballots; of course, they are not. In the private and public sector, negotiations take place every year without the need for them. We now have a statutory framework for industrial action ballots that provides for time periods. With this additional proposed week, we now have one week’s notice to the employer that a ballot is taking place, at least two weeks for the ballot period, then the announcement of the ballot result, before giving a further two weeks’ notice. We end up with a period of balloting for industrial action of some five weeks: five weeks to create uncertainty for an enterprise.
Lord Callanan
I understand the point that the noble Lord is making, but that is five weeks’ notice that it might happen; there is only two weeks’ notice of the precise date when the action will take place.
Lord Collins of Highbury
As my noble friend pointed out, the rationale for the amendment has been changing while the Bill has been under consideration. Nick Boles in the other place said that the clause will give employers the last opportunity before industrial action takes place to reach a negotiated settlement. At least that is a positive approach. The purpose of industrial action is not inflicting pain, distress and disruption. Clearly, that happens; there are always consequences. Its purpose is in the negotiating process: to try to bring parties together. In the main, at the end of the day, whatever the strike, there is a settlement and an agreement. It is sad that, often, it is strike action or the threat of it that brings parties together. I wish it was not so.
The Minister—I know I keep mentioning this; she must regret it—was part of an industrial agreement with a trade union in Tesco, which has practised a very good partnership agreement. Through the practice of negotiations, it strives to avoid disruption to the enterprise. That partnership agreement recognises that the success of the enterprise is in everyone’s mutual interest—to come back to the word “mutuality”.
Nick Boles said that the extra week is to provide that opportunity so that negotiations can take place to reach a solution. I want to challenge that a bit. The impact assessment seems to be about something else. It suggests that it is about making arrangements for contingency plans. The Government have conducted a consultation, and published the results in the impact assessment, on the use of agency workers to cover duties normally performed by an employee of an organisation who is taking part in a strike or other industrial action, but there are no provisions in the Bill on the use of agency workers. Will that be included in the Bill on Report, or will we face another series of amendments that propose secondary legislation? As my noble friend pointed out, such action is likely to undermine industrial action and will give employers an incentive to engage at the local car park rather than in positive negotiations to reach a mutual settlement.
I support my noble friend Lady Donaghy’s amendment, which returns the notice period to seven days. Our Amendment 34 is basically another probing amendment. It states that, where a union has indicated a specific date for industrial action on the voting paper—as the noble Lord has mentioned—it is not then required to give the notice.
We are trying better to understand the intent of the Government and the consequences of these actions. I am keen to get a sense of the Minister’s thinking on why two weeks. What evidence have the Government considered which demonstrates that the current seven-day period is ineffective?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
We will come back to that. In the mean time, I will deal with a different point. I have a serious concern about removing the notice and instead relying on the indicated period from the voting paper, as suggested in Amendment 34. An indication is a much vaguer concept. People must have notice of the days when industrial action will take place, or they cannot make the contingency plans that we have been discussing. These can, of course, help to reduce costs on both sides.
The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, most eloquently made the point that strikes can have a wider effect and cause a huge amount of disruption—not only for businesses but for the public. The public need an appropriate amount of time to make contingency arrangements. My concern is that the noble Baroness’s amendment does not address this. Nevertheless, the noble Baroness has made some good and interesting points, on which I would like to reflect.
Finally, to return to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, on whether a specific date on the voting paper would constitute notice, our answer is no.
Lord Collins of Highbury
Could the Minister give me a specific answer about the issue of contingency plans? The impact assessment talks about agency workers. If she is going to reassure the Committee that there is no intention to bring forward amendments or provide for secondary legislation, I shall be very happy.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I should like to look into that and revert, either under a later amendment or in writing, on the point that has been raised.
Lord Collins of Highbury
My Lords, there are two clear issues to consider in relation to this clause. The first is whether there is a case for an expiry of mandate and about the timing. The second is the most extraordinary own goal and, I suspect, the most unwanted measure in this part of the Bill: the abandonment of the requirement for some sort of action within 28 days. The evidence is clear that most disputes settle within or around 28 days of a ballot result, with the requirement for some action to be taken by the end of that period. It makes no sense, particularly in the private sector, to prolong that to four months. It would create uncertainty in a system that we have operated for a substantial period to have a ballot and then the action described in that ballot, whether it is on the ballot paper or not, taking up to four months rather than 28 days.
Our concern over the proposals is helpfully explained by the impact assessment, which states:
“We have not been able to quantify how this time limit will affect the number of working days lost to strike action, since we do not have data to reliably estimate the number of strikes across the whole economy which occur more than 4 months after the result of a ballot”.
So the Government have no idea what the effects of this change will be for industrial relations. It also notes that under current law it is for the courts to determine,
“whether a ballot mandate is still valid and that includes assessing whether there has been a substantial interruption in the industrial action”.
It is important to note that there is no freedom at the moment for a union to invoke, simply out of the blue, a ballot result from years ago. That is not the current situation.
One point that the Government have raised in support of having a four-month time limit, to which they refer in passing in the impact assessment and which was raised in Committee in the Commons, is that staff turnover means that not exactly the same group of employees will be there one or two years on from the date of the ballot. If the Government use this line today, and the Minister picks it up, it is worth being aware that any statistics for staff turnover that they cite in making this point tend to be for all employees, including those in non-unionised workplaces, in which staff turnover is significantly higher. In unionised workplaces turnover is significantly lower. The most recent ONS data covering 2014 show that across union members, 92.5% have more than a year’s service in their job. So the argument that staff turnover after just four months should invalidate a ballot, irrespective of the views of the remainder of the workforce who voted in it, is weak.
The Government’s argument is that 12 months is too long to live with uncertainty. The simple fact is that the Bill is constantly creating longer periods of uncertainty. An unresolved dispute is an uncertainty. Talks and negotiations are far better than strike action. The four-month limit just provides for a prolonged series of processes that will keep that uncertainty. Attrition does not seem a modern approach to effective management and employee-employer relationships.
The Government are introducing a time limit for ballot mandates in reaction to specific things, particularly in the public sector, but there is no relationship in this to real life and the real industrial relations situation in the economy as a whole. If the Bill becomes law, unions will no longer be required to start industrial action within the first four weeks. Where a dispute remains unresolved after four months, unions will have to ballot again. Again, this will create uncertainty. If there are difficult negotiations, why are we saying that we should take employers and unions up to the top of the hill again within four months? If this is the process that the Minister wants, we will end up with a situation in which unions will not be able to have a positive influence and will not be able to ensure that after people have been marched up to the top of the hill they can be marched down again.
We see evidence of that at the moment in the Government’s approach to industrial relations in the health service. They inflict a situation on people in which positions become entrenched. Industrial relations are about reaching amicable settlements. Negotiations are about bringing two parties together. Industrial action and the threat of it occasionally help to bring those two sides together. Some of the proposals in this Bill will have completely the opposite effect to what they are apparently intended to have.
The Government cite the basis for legislation on this as being due to the cases where unions have threatened strike action on ballots that took place over a year ago. I suspect I know the examples that the Minister will cite, but can she give me specific examples? How many are there beyond the four cases mentioned in the impact assessment? How many are there in the private sector and how many in the public sector? We need to know the evidence before we simply take on board these measures.
Lord Deben
It would obviously be unsuitable for me to make any comment whatsoever about the current strike, given my relationships. Therefore, I will keep away from that. However, I will take on very clearly the point that the noble Lord has made. One cannot possibly suggest that a railway strike is effective if it does not affect the railway passengers. To say, “I am striking but I do not mean to upset the passengers” is really a metaphor without meaning. The staff are striking because they do mean to upset the passengers, because that is the only way they think they can bring their case properly to the eyes of whichever British transport company is concerned. I do not in any way want to make the noble Lord unhappy, but one of the problems is that we pretend. We should not pretend: the purpose of a strike is to cause inconvenience in order that the management of whatever it is should give way.
Lord Collins of Highbury
I just want to correct the idea that nobody is concerned about the consequences of industrial action. Of course we are; all sides are very concerned. The evidence before us is that, in the day-to-day life of industrial relations, strikes are a matter of last resort. The evidence shows that most industrial action ballots result not in strike action but in speedier negotiations. In relation to this clause, does the noble Lord think it would help the process to have a continuous run of industrial action ballots if the negotiations have not been concluded within four months? The problem is that the negotiation period will move. It will not be four months and then a ballot; it will be before then. Will that help the speedy conclusion of negotiations?
Lord Deben
First, I did not accuse anybody of not caring about the passenger or the customer. I merely pointed out that in all the speeches I have heard from the other side nobody mentioned these people, so I cannot believe it is front-of-mind; I cannot believe that it is actually there. The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, whom I listened to with great care, and respect considerably, suggested that she had a suspicion about the nature of these proposals. The suspicion was that they were not really about improving industrial relations, but were in some way of a party-political kind. Of course, we can all have our suspicions. I have a suspicion that people who do not mention the customers or the passengers or the rest are not as interested in them as they are in the trades unions themselves—
Lord Deben
I hoped that I was addressing this with a certain degree of care. I do not want to enter into the argument as to whether trade unions or employers have behaved in one way or another. I believe that industrial action from time to time is necessary. I have never disagreed with that. But it seems to me important—I think the party opposite agrees—that this should in fact be the last resort: you do not have industrial action unless you really need to have it. I hope that one of the reasons the party thinks that, although it has not referred to it, is that it inconveniences—and more than inconveniences—the public as a whole. It is not unreasonable to think seriously about some of the things that can be done to ensure that people are careful about this. That is on both sides; I do not suggest anything other than that.
It seems reasonable to say that you do not call a ballot unless you really need to have industrial action, and it is unlikely that the circumstances four months later or thereafter will be the same as when the ballot was held. That is the point that the noble Lord who spoke last put forward. I am afraid that that does not support his case; it supports my case. If there have been significant changes in those four months, it does not seem reasonable to rely on a ballot that took place in entirely different circumstances. You should have a ballot close to the point at which the industrial action is taken. I think that four months is rather a long time. A week is a long time in politics and four months is a long time in industrial relations. There are other things in the Bill that I am not very happy about, but this proposal seems perfectly reasonable.
Lord Collins of Highbury
The Bill removes the requirement to take industrial action within 28 days. Does the noble Lord think that that is correct? That is what it will do: take 28 days out and say four months. That will not aid the process. I accept what the noble Lord said about strikes being a matter of last resort and that they are to be avoided, but on industrial action ballots the Government should not try to interfere with industrial relations in the way they have. The fact is that the most leverage a union has on an employer is not the industrial action it takes, but the mandate achieved through industrial action ballots.
Lord Deben
I give way regularly because I much prefer debate in this House. I do not much like the system that we have where you put down your name to speak and then nobody ever interrupts you; I always thought that that is not of as much interest and I am all in favour of changing it. I have given way, but I will not be led astray on to other issues. The issue I put forward is very simple: it does not seem sensible to rely on a ballot that took place more than four months ago to take industrial action, given that the change in circumstances may well be considerable, as the noble Lord said. That is why I would like to hear more about the customer and the fact that we ought to rely on a system where people know, with some immediacy, what the question is, vote on it and then take action.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, we have discussed at length the problems that are caused by old ballot mandates. For public credibility we must move away from having an indefinite period, with or without the agreement of the employer. As an example, the NASUWT took industrial action on 17 October 2013 based on a mandate secured in November 2011, almost two years earlier. The PCS held a strike on 15 October 2014 based on a mandate from March 2013.
My noble friend Lord Deben made the important point about the three sets of people affected. He rightly emphasised the customer—the passenger, in my first example—and the public, who are affected as a result of disruption on an out-of-date mandate. That is why Clause 8 specifies that a ballot mandate must have an expiry date. This means that there will no longer be a prolonged period of uncertainty. That will benefit everyone.
In deciding how long a mandate should last, we have sought to provide a balance. On the one hand we have removed the uncertainty that can hang over employers’ heads for years. On the other hand we have provided a reasonable amount of time for constructive negotiations. The question then is what period would be appropriate to deliver that balance.
We have proposed four months. I have listened carefully and with great interest to the arguments put forward by noble Lords on all sides of the House. I have heard some good arguments for a period of longer than four months. Some are resistant to that. Nevertheless I remain concerned that a period of 12 months would tip the balance far too far in favour of unions, to the detriment of others. That would mean that employers would still have the threat of a strike hanging over them for a considerable length of time. That does not help to create a stable and certain environment for business. Nor is it good for union members. They need certainty about the period during which they may be asked to take industrial action, particularly given the consequential effect on their pay and their families.
Another important point on which my noble friend Lord Deben also touched is that people’s views about a dispute can change over time. It is only right that the union checks back with its members to see whether they still support the industrial action. This is why I have a concern about Amendments 38 and 39. They suggest that the union and employer could agree between themselves to extend the mandate, either indefinitely or for, say, three months, without reballoting members to see whether they agree. My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay commented on this. Such a rolling and continuing mandate would also affect the wider public, and we should think about that in the balance as well.
Finally, in relation to Amendment 36, I am pleased to assure the House that it is not necessary to make it clear that the four-month time period begins on the last day of voting. The date of the ballot is already defined in Section 246 of the 1992 Act as the last day of voting in the ballot.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked why we should remove the 28-day initial action period. It is no longer necessary—I think that he came to this conclusion himself—because the ballot mandate will be limited to four months and this will increase the time available for dialogue so that strike action is averted where possible. We want strikes to be a matter of last resort. I hope that I have understood his point correctly.
Lord Collins of Highbury
Just for clarity, the purpose of the 28 days is to ensure—whatever the rights and wrongs—that industrial action ballots are a matter of last resort. My point was that industrial action ballots, as the noble and learned Lord noted, themselves become the leverage. They strengthen the union’s position. Unions were quite quick to learn that the bad old days did not produce results. The reforms—and I shall call them reforms—ensured that mandates were far more secure. They have more authority and are, therefore, far more effective. My problem with the proposition in this clause is that they become a regular thing. By removing the 28 days, they are no longer the precursor to industrial action, while inserting every four months leads to the situation where unions will have to get their members to vote for the mandate not just at the end of four months but clearly before that. This will prolong the uncertainty and make matters worse.
I come back to the point that this is about how we support two sides in negotiations. I am not ignoring the impact of disputes, but at the end of the day what will stop a dispute is the two sides reaching an agreement. The current situation is far better, and I fear that the proposals in this clause will potentially lead to uncertainty for a much longer period. The noble and learned Lord made the extremely good point that the strike ballot mandate can become an important element in reaching an agreement. Is it not then appropriate and sensible that the two sides, instead of being forced to come apart again and ballot, can agree mutually to extend that period so that the focus is on negotiations rather than on a strike?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I thank the noble Lord for his measured response. I agree with the point that was made about trade unions doing good things. It was good to see the noble Lord, Lord Jordan, joining the debate and reminding us of all the workers who never go on strike and to hear the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, talking about the importance of consultation. We discussed some of the positives about unions in our very good curtain-raising debate last November, which I certainly found extremely useful for getting me into the subject.
We still need to tackle the question of out-of-date ballots, however, which can lead to industrial action long after people have made up their minds. That is a problem we are seeking to address in this legislation and in this clause. However, this has been an important debate this evening, and I would like to take some time to reflect on the points that have been made. The length of the mandate and extension by agreement seem to be the two things that have come through in the discussion.
Lord Collins of Highbury
It is important, before we come back to these issues, to note that when we make legislation, it should be evidence-based. I know that we have these four cases that are often quoted, and the impact assessment, but has the Minister’s department properly examined what goes on in the private sector? Is there a difference between the private sector and the public sector? What is the norm for industrial action ballots? I think the vast majority of industrial action ballots in the private sector result in negotiations without industrial action. If that is the case, could the department do a proper assessment? The unintended consequence of this measure could be that the process of negotiations is interrupted, to have a strike ballot to ensure that the negotiations continue. Strike ballots are not a neutral process: they are about members winding themselves up and saying, “We have a strong case and we’re going to resist it”. The constant referral to a strike ballot will, in my opinion, harden views not soften them. It will not aid negotiations.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I have listened to what has been said and, as your Lordships know, have already wound up. We have some information on what has happened in the private sector and I am very happy to have a conversation with the noble Lord before we get to the next stage. We also have some very good examples, mainly in the public sector, as the noble Lord says, where these out-of-date strike ballots have been enormously damaging. That remains the case, but of course we can talk further. My door is always open, as I have said so many times.
Lord Collins of Highbury
I assume the Minister is asking me to withdraw my amendment, but I repeat that this is an issue we will have to come back to. As we have heard in this debate, there is a consensus across the board, from all sides, that we have to be careful here not to hinder the process of negotiation. We need to ensure that it is supported. However, in the light of the assurances about having further discussions, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Donaghy
My Lords, I will make a couple of brief points. There is an irony in this debate, because most of the time in opposition we are asking for things to be in the Bill, and it is the Government who say, “Oh no, there is a very good reason why it should not be in the Bill, it can come in a regulation”—or, dare I say it, in a code of practice. So I am aware of that dilemma. The first thing that I want to say after that is that I do not think that anybody here is going to say that violence and intimidation are acceptable, whether on a picket line or elsewhere in pursuit of a certain point of view. But I will say that up to now the code of practice has been adequate. I do not agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, that just because a few people might disregard it, the tail should be allowed to wag the dog and that somehow or other things need to be tightened up because there is a very small minority determined in some cases to cause that confrontation and take on the establishment.
My final point might seem trivial, but I do not think that it has been raised since my noble friend Lady Gould of Potternewton raised it at Second Reading. It is about the feminisation of the workforce. To a large extent, the trade union movement has not caught up with that as much as I would have liked, but we are now talking about a workforce, particularly in the public services, the majority of whom are women and people from ethnic minorities. As often as not, when you see pictures of pickets in the newspapers, the vast majority of them are women. I think that they have a slightly different understanding of employment relations; they might feel passionately about a particular dispute, but I would like to see one instance where women on a picket line have caused these difficulties. So I urge a bit of caution and that in any attempt to tighten up or change the code of practice into a law we should have regard to the fact that the industrial relations scene is very different from how it was 35 years or so ago, which some noble Lords were talking about.
Lord Collins of Highbury
My Lords, we have had a very effective discussion on these clauses—effective because we are challenging why we need a particular proposal. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, hit the nail on the head. These things often require careful consideration. My fear is that we have not had careful consideration; what we have had is a response to particular headlines and newspaper stories. As my noble friend Lord Monks said, where there are failings it is often because the law has not been properly applied or has not been dealt with. Many noble Lords are acutely aware that we should not rush to statute or invent new laws to address a problem that could be properly resolved under existing laws.
As we have heard, picketing is heavily regulated; unions must comply with statutory requirements for peaceful picketing. Section 220 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 requires that they must act in accordance with the code. It is not a choice or an option—it is not voluntary but a requirement. As my noble friend Lord Monks said, “What is the problem?”
As other noble Lords indicated, and as the noble Lord, Lord Oates, said, it is clear from the impact assessment that the real target is the so-called leverage campaigns that we have seen. Yet these provisions and clauses are targeted at picketing itself, particularly after the wider consultation proposals were dropped. The problem that I have is that the impact assessment refers to allegations of intimidatory behaviour “not limited to picketing”. That is the key phrase: “not limited to”. The impact assessment and evidence that the Government are using for these proposals relate to matters that are not about picketing.
They are, of course, about actions that are already covered in law. The impact assessment refers to unsubstantiated allegations in the media and, of course, to the Bruce Carr review, which focused on leverage. But we must not forget that unions and their members are subject to laws on public order, such as protection from harassment and criminal damage. They are all existing laws. It is also a criminal offence for pickets to use violence or to intimidate individuals and their families. Hence the police go on the picket line, and they soon return if there is any problem, and action is taken. So why do we have these additional requirements?
We have heard that we should have a voluntary code—well, it is not voluntary; it must be complied with—on the face of the Bill. As my noble friend said, we want clarity in the Bill, but this is not going to add to clarity. Potentially, again, it is going to increase the involvement of the legal profession, and it might lead to challenges that are unintended. I shall come to the details of that in the Bill. I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is not in his place, because he wrote a very good article in the Times specifically highlighting these clauses. It is about coming back to this House with proper evidence about why this is required and why existing statutory provisions are not enough.
The clause will introduce significant additional restrictions on the ability of unions to organise peaceful pickets at or near a place of work. If the Bill becomes law, picketing will be lawful only if unions appoint a picket supervisor and notify the police of their name and contact details. The supervisors will be required to carry a letter of approval, which must be shown; they will be required to wear armbands and badges to identify them. As we have heard, on Report in the Commons the Government introduced amendments that removed the requirement on picket supervisors to show the letter of approval on demand to the police or any member of the public.
Ministers also clarified that it was not the Government’s intention that the letter of approval should include the name or contact details of the picket supervisor. The Government went further and announced that they did not plan to go ahead with additional restrictions, including the requirement on unions to publish protest plans 14 days in advance and to detail whether they proposed to use social media. They also decided not to require all pickets to wear armbands, and will not introduce additional criminal offences. While those developments are incredibly welcome, Clause 9 still violates the basic democratic rights of working people.
In our opinion, it is unreasonable for the state to require picket supervisors to undertake the requirements about understanding the full code. It is our opinion that a lot of these requirements are disproportionate and are also discriminatory measures, as they apply only to unions. As we have heard, the proposals have been roundly criticised by lawyers and civil liberties groups—and, of course, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has suggested that Clause 9, even as amended, may be in breach of Articles 11 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
My noble friend has also picked up the point that Clause 9 may substantially change the role of the police in relation to pickets and the union’s requirement to report the name of the supervisor. This becomes an issue where we have responsible action, with the union ensuring that peaceful protest and legitimate process to explain the reasons, and suddenly responsible people hear that their name has to be reported to the police and that the police will hold their name. They will ask what that means. We hear the Government talk about data protection, and say that this will happen and that will happen. A lot of responsible people will say that they are not sure. They will ask whether they should carry out this task in this proper way if it will result in these things being reported to the police. It increases the potential for responsible picketing not taking place. We will have to look into that seriously.
In the evidence session in the House of Commons, the National Police Chiefs’ Council has indicated that the new duties for unions to notify the police of the picket supervisor and the location of the picket would be unnecessary and could waste police resources. Deputy Chief Constable Charles Hall said:
“I do not see that as absolutely necessary, simply because we would expect those picket lines to be self-policing as far as possible. Involvement of police beyond that should be the exception, rather than the rule”.––[Official Report, Commons, Trade Union Public Bill Committee, 15/10/15; col. 93.]
Again, this was a point that my noble friend Lord Monks made: namely, that you are ensuring increased intervention and that resources are wasted. Police are there to ensure that the existing law is properly maintained. I know that the police would not hesitate to go in there.
We have put down a series of amendments, particularly in relation to those reporting requirements. They are matters that need careful consideration. Putting these requirements in the Bill again increases the propensity for legal challenge. If the letter of the law is not met, we will end up with lawyers intervening, legal challenges and the unions devoting resources to deal with that, instead of matters being properly resolved in the way that they are now.
I come back to the point: what is the problem that we are seeking to address? If it is about compliance with the law, let us ensure that we address that properly. If people are breaking the law they should suffer the consequences. We should not simply go back to the statute book and introduce laws that are not necessary and could potentially hinder good conduct, because good people will be put off doing a responsible job.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I note what the noble Lord says. In a sense, I think he is making the same point as the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, made with his third question about why the code is not adequate. Examples from the Carr review and elsewhere, which I went through earlier, reveal that the code is not always followed. By putting elements of the code on a statutory footing in the Bill we will ensure consistency across all picketing activity, which will improve union accountability and public confidence.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, mentioned human rights. I think the allegation is that the legal obligation to appoint a picket supervisor and to show credentials to the police is discriminatory. Unfortunately, as the Carr review heard last year, there is concerning evidence that pickets organised by unions can and do lead to unacceptable levels of intimidation. In the circumstances, the Government consider it important that unions take all the steps they reasonably can to co-operate with police and ensure that pickets pass off peacefully. These provisions are not disproportionate and are justified under Article 11 and the ILO conventions. Rather than delay the Committee on this issue, I should say that following the debate at Second Reading I wrote to the chairman of the EHRC on the various human rights aspects of the Bill.
Amendment 42 limits the provisions of Clause 9 only to picketing that is directly organised by the union and will create unhelpful distinctions between union-organised picketing and picketing that is encouraged by the union. It would lead to unnecessary confusion between what will be perceived as different types of picketing. The law should apply to all picketing.
On Amendment 45, the Bill sets out a number of requirements which, combined, make the provisions in Clause 9 work effectively. The key to achieving this is the appointment of the picket supervisor, who needs to be familiar with the code so that he or she can act as a source of knowledge and advice.
Lord Collins of Highbury
This returns to the point about reasonable people. How will the requirement that the person be familiar with the code be tested? What knowledge is required? As my noble friend said, the person may think seven people rather than six is reasonable. What will the person be judged on there?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That is a good question, but my understanding is that provisions relating to familiarity are not new. They have been in the code of practice on picketing since 1992. Familiarity with the code is not an onerous requirement; it is a necessity for the person who is going about their business.
I turn to interaction with the police. It is important that the police know who the picket supervisor is, how to contact him or her and where the picket is taking place. The supervisor does not have to be on the picket line all the time, provided they can return at short notice. It provides an extra safeguard where the police will be able to contact the supervisor should an issue arise on the picket line that does not require police intervention but would benefit from the picket supervisor’s advice.
The advance notice of such details, in particular the location of the picketing, should help the police to plan their resources in the event that something happens on the picket line which requires their attention. The provision to inform the police reflects the language of the code, which has not given cause for concern. The police are, of course, bound by the Data Protection Act and any complaints about the mishandling of personal data can be brought before the independent Police Complaints Commissioner and/or the Information Commissioner. I am not aware of any complaints of this nature related to picketing.
I move on to Amendments 48 and 49 and the letter of approval. As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said, this has been the cause of significant misunderstanding and concern. We have listened and made amendments. There is now no requirement for any of the picket supervisor’s personal details to be in the letter. Following consultation, the Government tabled an amendment so that the letter seeks only to approve the picketing activity. We further fine-tuned Clause 9 to clarify that only the employer to which the trade dispute relates and at whose workplace picketing occurs will be entitled to see this letter.
I fear that removing this requirement for a letter would result in confusion on the picket line about whether the union has endorsed the picketing and appointed a picket supervisor. I am not sure whether that was the intention, but the substituted wording in Amendment 49 removes the words,
“as soon as reasonably practicable”,
and would make the provision to see the letter more onerous.
On Amendments 51 and 52, the appointed picket supervisor will be the main point of contact during picketing and will act as a source of knowledge so that picketing remains peaceful. That is in everyone’s interest.
Finally, I come to the matter brought forward in the other place by the honourable member for Haltemprice and Howden. The media portrayal of this issue of armbands has been frankly mischievous. The key part is that the picket supervisor must be identifiable. The reference to an armband already sits in the code and is, of course, an indicative example. There are other ways of being identifiable, for example, wearing a badge or having blue hair. However, it is clear that there are concerns. I will therefore reflect further on this matter before Report.
Clause 9 seeks to tackle the intimidation of non-striking workers in a fair and proportionate way. It will result in picketing that is peaceful and consistent in the way it is conducted. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Collins of Highbury
My Lords, we have two groups dealing with this clause. In a later group, my noble friend Lady Smith will focus on the principles behind Clauses 10 and 11, the fundamental unfairness of the proposals, the timeframe for implementation and the impact on party-political funding—issues which are currently being investigated by your Lordships’ Select Committee. So I will not dwell too much on the points that will be covered by my noble friend.
In this group of amendments, I want to focus on the practicalities and the cost to the trade unions of implementing the clauses and on whether the Government have considered processes that would ease the administrative burden through more modern methods. I am acutely aware that the existing model rules of political funds have been laid down by statute and have to be approved by the Certification Officer. They state exactly what the union can or cannot do in terms of notices and how they are applied. What I find interesting is that the Government have, in effect, replicated the requirements for renewal notices in terms of the opt-in every five years. They will need to be in writing and must be delivered to the union’s headquarters or branch office, in person or through an agent, or by post. They repeat the existing provisions in the political fund rules. In terms of an opt-in, if the Government pursue that route—obviously, I am not addressing the principles here—it would seem sensible to look at what is the current practice in the way people pay their subscriptions, notify their union and communicate with it. It would have been an opportunity to look at that.
If we are to be committed to these processes where they must be in writing and delivered by post, such processes will prove time-consuming for members and incredibly cumbersome for unions, which will not be able to take advantage of automated processing systems. I have seen the letter from the noble Baroness to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. Before writing that letter, she needed to look at the model rules that unions are required to comply with and see what they can do. The current opt-in provisions are laid down. Of course, unions have had to conduct statutory ballots on whether they have a political fund every 10 years. Within that process, obviously unions have a huge communication responsibility, particularly on the purpose of a political fund. I have often tried to explain to people that a political fund is not a separate pot of gold. It is a part of a union subscription that a member gives to the union that may be spent for political purposes. Those political purposes have changed over the years, particularly since PPERA, and I will come to some of those issues in later clauses.
I want to focus on the practical implications. Regarding the opt-in renewal notices and the requirement for them to be in writing, I hope the Minister will be very clear about what that means. The Government’s impact assessment has stated that the cost of doing this will reach more than £2.4 million every five years. The TUC believes that that is a substantial underestimate; from my own personal experience, I tend to agree. It is a huge cost. That cost is not going not to the Labour Party or anywhere else; it is not going on union services and union benefits. It is an additional cost and a regulatory burden that needs to be taken into account. Even though there is a requirement to opt in every five years, the members, even when they have opted in, will have an opt-out at any point.
My big concern is that currently the Bill says that unions would have to implement these provisions within 12 weeks. That is an incredibly short time in which to be able to mount such a huge exercise. Clause 10 will require unions to revise their rulebook. In this country, unions are not part of the state. They may have been in some other nations, but in this country unions are independent. They govern themselves and they have rulebooks that are overseen by their members. In order to comply with this measure, rule changes would need to be agreed by members, with a process of approval through the Certification Officer. It is completely unreasonable for the Government to expect unions with a political fund to convene a special rule-making conference within three months. Most unions hold such conferences once a year or every two years, and in some cases it has been once every five years. Of course, in some unions the executive committees have delegated authority.
Lord Robathan (Con)
Surely this Bill is talking about what was agreed by the TUC in 1984—we have the letters. It was said that opting out would be made so obvious that it would happen but, as the noble Lord knows from my noble friend Lord Forsyth’s letter, that has not been the case.
Lord Collins of Highbury
I am sure that we will come on to that requirement. One thing that this debate has to deal with is the existing requirements in relation to trade unions. Any code of practice or model guidance more than 30 years ago was made in the context of 10-yearly ballots on whether a union should have a political fund. A union’s practices in terms of notifying and making its members aware of opt-out provisions are laid down by statute. They are not set out simply in a code; they are laid down in model rules specified by the Certification Officer and the unions must comply with them. For example—this is my point about some of the regulatory requirements— if a method of communication were electronic, it would not necessarily be compliant with the union’s existing rules and you could have the ridiculous situation where the unions were challenged for breaching them. Regarding the operation of the opt-out, you would need to ask how many complaints there had been and how many people had been dissatisfied with their rights.
Not only was I an assistant general-secretary of the Transport and General Workers’ Union and Unite but I was general-secretary of the Labour Party. I recall that in 2008 the Scottish National Party, the Conservative Party and, I think, the Liberal Democrats mounted a campaign to ensure that members knew of their right to opt out. It did not result in a huge number of opt-outs because I think people were perfectly aware of the procedure. It is a bit like some members of the Conservative Party asserting that the relationship between the unions and the Labour Party is a secret. If it is such a secret and is not known, all I can say is that the Daily Mail certainly seems to make enough of it. During the last general election campaign, I saw Conservative Party literature that made it absolutely clear who funds the Labour Party.
I have absolutely no problem with being totally out and proud of the relationship that the Labour Party has with the trade unions. In 1900, the trade unions established the Labour Party. They were the members of the Labour Party for the first 18 years. There were no individuals in the party. It was a federated body whose purpose was to ensure representation in Parliament. Over the years, things have changed. The last time these sorts of proposals were implemented was in 1927—
Lord Callanan
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I have the honour of serving on the committee which is currently studying this matter, and I suppose that we should be grateful to the Labour Party for suggesting this. One factor that we have been considering a great deal is the Collins review, which I believe was written by the noble Lord. Correct me if I am wrong, but did that not propose moving from an opt-out to an opt-in system, albeit over a slightly longer timescale?
Lord Collins of Highbury
If the noble Lord wants me to give a long lecture on the Collins review, I shall be very happy to do that. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Maude, is here because, prior to the Collins review, he and I sat down for nearly a whole year and talked about party-political funding. During that time, never once did we think of changing the current arrangements by statute. Opting in and opting out of a political fund is not simply a matter about party funding, and of course not all unions are affiliated to or give money to the Labour Party—they use their political funds for a range of purposes. My concern about these proposals does not relate simply to Labour Party or party-political funding; we will come to that.
The question of the current ability to opt out of the political fund arrangements is dealt with in the amendments. Should we reinvigorate the voluntary code in addition to the 10-yearly ballots? You can hardly say that during those ballots people are not notified about the existence of a political fund.
I know that I am a lot older than I look, but I remember when the original 1984 proposals came in. In fact, I was partly responsible for implementing them. There was a genuine concern in some quarters, with people asking, “Do people know about political funds? Do they know what we’re doing?”. In some respects it was a challenge for the trade unions—as with all threats, they are often challenges. The 1984 proposals made unions go out and make a strong case for their political funds. What was the result of the 1984 Act? It was not that some unions decided not to have a political fund. Every single union that had a political fund in 1984 adopted the resolution, through postal voting by their members, and kept their political fund. But the 1984 provision also made other unions think that perhaps this would enable them to have a voice, which they had not had so far. As a consequence of the 1984 Act, we ended up with more unions having political funds than had been the case before, so the challenge was important and it was delivered upon.
If there is a problem concerning the right of members to say for religious, personal or other reasons, “I don’t want any of my union subscription spent on political purposes”, then let us address it properly. The Collins report was about the relationship between the Labour Party and the trade union movement. It asked: has that relationship since 1900 worked properly? In 1920, we adopted a constitution that introduced individuals into the party. There was then a dichotomy, with individuals and affiliated organisations, and the question of the balance of responsibility between the two groups. That is our tradition; it is our heritage. We are not going to turn the clock back and say that how we have become what we are is unimportant. We need to understand the journey and, sometimes, that journey leads us to changes that need to be made; for example, when we reformed the way that we conducted our business. That is the context of the Collins report.
My noble friend Lady Smith will address the point about whether to opt in or opt out of political funds in the next group, so we will have two bites of the cherry—the next group but one, sorry; I forgot about the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. I do not know how the Minister covers so many groups. The point is that there are issues that need to be addressed here. The Government are imposing, with a 12-week transition period, incredible burdens on unions and making it extremely difficult for these provisions to be implemented. In some respects, it makes one feel that the whole purpose of the exercise is to make it so difficult that not many people will opt in. I know that my noble friend will address this, but when Sir Christopher Kelly and Hayden Phillips looked at this issue in the round, they concluded that a transitional period was necessary and that it should be five years. That was in the context of taking big money out of politics, donations and interparty talks.
I want to focus on the specifics. The amendments I have put down are about the ways we can ensure that, if this is going to go through, it is not deliberately causing difficulties for the union or individual members. Why is there a five-year opt-in period? Why do people have to do it again? If someone does not opt in again after five years, why is the default position that they are out? What is that provision for? Bear in mind that, in addition to the requirement to opt in, the 1984 Act will remain on the statute and requires unions to conduct a ballot every 10 years on whether they have a political fund. Why is there a five-year review? It is unnecessary and, I think, being done deliberately to ensure that people will not be in the political fund.
One issue I have some concern with is the Government saying that there is no evidence that there would be a substantial attrition in membership resulting from this lapsing after five years. But look at any evidence about making people do something positively. It is a bit like signing a donor card and then being told that you will have to sign it again every five years. I know what the medical profession would say to that: it would not be very happy. I do not know why this is being applied here at all.
Through the details of each of my amendments, I want to probe exactly what methodology the Government are proposing. Perhaps the Minister can explain what “in writing” means. She has had tremendous responsibility in digitising the economy and making sure that we have modern methods of communications—apart from, as I heard in the background from my noble friend, for the unions. Unions cannot adopt modern methods of communication or proper processes that will ensure success. No, it has to be “in writing”.
If this requirement does come into effect, why have the Government not considered the possibility of applying it only to new members? Why are the unions being given the huge task of going back to members who have understood themselves to be part of the organisation to ask them to opt in? The Government are making retrospective legislation, in some senses. Why has a gradual approach not been looked at? These are issues that we need to look at in some detail.
Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)
My Lords, I feel that, in a sense, these debates are in the wrong order. The noble Lord is talking about the various ways in which, if the Bill is brought in, it might be improved. The noble Lord, Lord Monks, has tabled an important amendment which goes to the heart of the matter and the fundamental reasons we are here in the first place, and I think the Minister will have something to say on these issues as well. I do not know how we are going to deal with these issues. They are very important, and I understand the sensitivities and deep feeling involved. It would be a good idea if we could somehow get the amendments in this debate in the right order. I do not know whether to foreclose on this, but perhaps we should deal briefly with these particular amendments and then get to the heart of the matter.
Lord Collins of Highbury
I am grateful for that intervention. The noble Lord, Lord King, is right. I could not predict the order that we would take the amendments in, and I am happy to leave these on the table, as it were, so that we can look at the practical implications and move speedily on to the next groups, where we will be able to address the principles in relation to the model rules. I beg to move.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford
Are we not going to have a preliminary debate on this? I want to make the same point as was made by the noble Lord, Lord King. We have already had a long debate on this section and have decided that the matter will be referred to a Select Committee, which is now taking evidence. Therefore, I do not intend to make a long speech on these amendments, for the very reasons that the noble Lord, Lord King, said.
I do not want to go into all the arguments as to why the Select Committee is important, but, in parenthesis, and so that I do not have to say much more in this series of debates, I want to say three things. First, the Select Committee received evidence from the Certification Officer when it was in public session. As I understand it, he said two things. One is that he was never consulted, which is surprising if we are trying to look at responsible legislation, because he is going to have to implement it. The second thing he said is that he has had to deal with very few complaints on opting-in and opting-out issues.
Secondly, I want to make a general point about the amendments in this group, and particularly the reference to “electronic means”. If we want a way to encourage people not to opt in, it ought to be in writing because, these days, nobody responds to correspondence in an efficient and effective way, but they do respond to emails. To have the Minister, a pioneer of the digital age, advocating that all the replies should be in writing is, frankly, taking us back to the horse and cart. That is very important.
Thirdly, government Ministers do not have to employ an army of special advisers to advise them on the best way of doing the Labour Party down. I am sure that there are behavioural scientists who advise the Government on how people respond to government correspondence. They know exactly what happens when you take a certain action. If you stick to the writing, rather than going electronic, you are just encouraging the destruction of the funding of the Labour Party.
Nobody has more interest than this side of the House in getting political funding reform, I can tell you. But as we said in the debate, we want to make sure that this is a fair package which is agreed. If you do not, it will be open warfare in the future and your individual donations will be under attack—
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I propose that we adjourn and that I answer the questions that have been raised by the noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Stoneham, when we discuss the amendment after next.
Lord Collins of Highbury
Okay. In the light of those comments, I will withdraw the amendment, as long as I can then interrupt the Minister in the next group.