PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Trade Union Bill (Sixth sitting) - 20 October 2015 (Commons/Public Bill Committees)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan, as we return to line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill. When we left, we were discussing the group of amendments about devolution and I was about to set out my case on amendment 11.

By setting balloting thresholds for the range of important services defined by the Bill, we need to be clear that this will impact on public policy areas that are wholly devolved. As a Welsh Member of Parliament, I am concerned that the Bill could breach the devolution settlement in Wales and in Scotland, as well as with regard to the increasing powers of local authorities in England, Mayors and the Mayor of London.

Health services, education of those aged under 17 and fire services are already clearly devolved to Wales, and the Welsh First Minister stated in a recent letter to the Prime Minister:

“It is clear…that significant elements of the Bill relate specifically to public services which in Wales are unambiguously devolved responsibilities. I therefore do not accept the suggestion that the Bill must be regarded as concerned exclusively with non-devolved issues…Policy on how to support, or ‘protect’, the delivery of devolved public services such as health, education and fire is…for the Welsh Government and the National Assembly for Wales. This includes the way the public sector bodies in such devolved services work with trade unions to ensure effective delivery of services to the public.”

That is very important because we regularly hear examples from the Government about services. Most of them seem to relate to London—though, as I have said, we should give the Mayor of London the choice of how to handle these relationships. These examples do not relate to services in Wales, Scotland or elsewhere. I wonder why that is. Given that the devolved Governments have raised a series of concerns in their oral and written evidence, in letters and so on, will the Minister inform the Committee what discussions he and other Ministers in the Department and the Minister for the Cabinet Office have had with Ministers and officials in the devolved Administrations before the Bill was published and subsequent to their concerns being raised?

This is particularly important because the First Minister of Wales specifically pointed out the positive social partnerships that exist in Wales—we have heard similar evidence from Scotland—and the impact that that can have on the positive delivery of public services. The Minister need not accept just the word of the Welsh Government for this, welcome though that would be, as we also have research published by the Royal College of Nursing, which witnesses touched on in oral evidence. The research highlights the benefits of high-trust working relationships between managers and unions in the public sector. In that case, it was related to health in particular. I believe that the Bill and this clause seek to drive a false wedge between them.

We have already heard how Scottish Labour and local authorities run by Scottish Labour have made it very clear that they do not intend to implement the Bill. I have been made aware during the lunch break of a statement released by one of the Welsh councils, and I know that many share this position. I have a statement from Torfaen, a Labour-run authority. Councillor Anthony Hunt has tabled a resolution there, endorsed by the council, which says that the council

“resolves to oppose the introduction of the Trade Union Bill 2015, urges the Government to abandon the Bill and instead make a commitment to work in partnership with the trade union movement”.

There is dissension at many levels.

That is a perfect example, which exposes the different industrial relations policies that different Governments across these islands are pursuing and the benefits to the public of avoiding strike action, which is what the Government say that they want to do with the Bill. The example that my hon. Friend just gave stands in stark contrast to the testy relationship that appears to exist, as we heard in oral evidence, between the London fire brigade and the Fire Brigades Union, and the wider context of industrial relations in that city. Surely if the Government’s aim, as they keep repeating, is to reduce industrial action and disruption, particularly in crucial services such as fire, we want to do everything we can to build positive partnerships and come to resolutions, as was the case in Wales.

Amendment 12, in a similar vein to amendment 11, seeks to ensure that the Bill does not interfere with the ability of directly elected Mayors and local authorities in England to manage such services and decide how to manage their relationships with trade unions. It is consistent with the Government’s localism agenda. Amendments 42 and 72 relate to clause 10, on political party fund opt-ins, which we will discuss in due course. Briefly, amendment 42 would ensure that the opt-in requirements for trade union political funds would not apply to public sector employees working in sectors or providing services that are devolved to the Scottish and Welsh Governments. Amendment 72 would ensure that the proposed new opt-in requirements for union political funds did not apply to employees of the Mayor of London or local authorities in England. Again, as a point of principle, we believe that those bodies should be able to make their own decisions about how to manage their relationships with trade unions in those sectors and how those trade unions use their money.

On amendment 51 and 73, I draw the Committee’s attention to a letter dated 10 September 2015 from Carwyn Jones, the Welsh First Minister, to the Prime Minister, expressing his concerns about the Trade Union Bill. In the letter, the First Minister says:

“Similarly, it cannot be right for the UK Government—blind to policy priorities and devolved service delivery reforms in Wales—to specify how much union ‘facility time’ devolved public sector employers should allow. Nor am I convinced that the intention to end ‘check off’ arrangements for trade union subscriptions in the public sector is necessary or appropriate. The Welsh Government operates these arrangements as part of its approach to effective social partnership and is not seeking to change this.”

I know that the Scottish Government are similarly concerned about this matter, and I am sure that my colleagues from the Scottish National party would agree.

These are important policy decisions about relationships and the balance of responsibilities and rights. They are part of the crucial relationship between the Government and public bodies, and those who work in them. Frankly, the Welsh and Scottish Governments have a different approach, and they want to ensure that it is positive.

That is a very important point. As I made clear when introducing our amendments, the Labour party believes in exempting all parts of the United Kingdom from the Bill and its provisions. It would be hugely problematic for there to be areas of complete disagreement and an imbalance among the different parts of the UK. That prompts a series of questions, and I hope the Minister can explain how the measure will work in practice, given that the devolved Governments and local authorities are already indicating that they do not wish to implement it.

Amendment 51 would ensure that the new requirements to report on facility time would not apply to employees of the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, the Northern Ireland Executive or public sector employers working for or providing services that are partially or wholly devolved to those bodies. It would ensure that the Bill does not interfere with the ability of those Governments to manage those services and decide how they engage with their staff and determine their relationships with trade unions.

In the same vein, amendment 73 would ensure that the new reporting requirements did not apply to the facility time of employees of the Mayor of London or local authorities in England. Again, that is consistent with the Government’s localism agenda.

That is a very important point. I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing our attention to what the general secretary of Unison had to say on that matter. Unison represents a significant number of employees in local government across the UK and has exposed a very serious problem.

I want to ask the Minister some specific questions that I hope he will answer in his response to this part of the debate. I pressed him in the oral evidence session about the legal assessments that had been made in developing the Bill. Clearly, I do not expect him to share the detail of Government legal advice, but I would like to know, given the apparent paucity of consultation with devolved Governments across the UK and, it appears, with local government, what conversations took place. I am not asking the Minister to share the contents of the conversations, but can he tell us what conversations took place, given the huge implications of the Bill and the legal precedent for cases such as this ending up in the Supreme Court? What conversations took place? Did any take place? I sincerely hope that they did. Anything the Minister can share with the Committee would be very helpful.

I pushed the Minister on my second point in the oral evidence session. As we have heard from a vast number of legal experts, there is a serious risk of legal challenge to the Bill. One legal opinion can be challenged by another, but the reality is that that might be exactly where the Bill ends up: in the courts. Have the Government set aside funds to deal with legal proceedings that might result—it is inevitable, I believe—from the Bill’s proceeding in its present form?

Thirdly, I would like to know the Minister’s response to the apparent concerns of the Welsh and Scottish Governments, local government across England and local government in Wales and Scotland, and his response should they choose not to implement the Bill, because they believe that it breaches their settlement. Will he take legal proceedings against them to enforce the Bill? How much does he think that that will cost the taxpayer? Or will he just let them carry on? I am sure that he wants to enforce his Bill, but there will be a cost if there is resistance to it from the public bodies to which he is trying to apply it. Keith Ewing said very clearly that he thought that we were walking blindfold into a major constitutional crisis. I have great sympathy with that position.

Fourthly, given the nature of existing contractual arrangements in a whole series of public bodies that receive public funding, which refer to check-off, facility time, and to many other matters that are pertinent to the Bill, does the Minister propose that the measure will apply retrospectively, and that we would therefore have to unwind hundreds of thousands of contractual arrangements, particularly in the public sector across the UK? Will the Bill apply retrospectively? How does the Minister think that will impact? What estimate has he made of the cost, should any individual challenge that through the courts? I imagine that quite a significant number of individuals would want to challenge that if they believed that they had signed a contract in good faith with a public body that gave them certain rights. What estimate have the Minister and the Department made of the cost of that? How does he see the Bill being implemented?

Will he have a hit squad, which the Minister for the Cabinet Office talked about, going round local authorities and devolved Governments to check the texts of the contractual arrangements that they enter into? Will he go through every piece of paper signed by every public sector employee or by anyone who could vaguely be determined to have enjoyed some sort of public sector funding in their role? Will he interfere with every single one of those contracts? This is an extraordinarily heavy-handed approach from a Government who claim that they want to avoid regulation and interference—and that they are the Government of devolution and localism.

I have a final question for the Minister. We heard from the Scottish and Welsh Governments that they are reserving their position on whether a legislative consent motion is required for the Bill. Perhaps not all members of the Committee are familiar with legislative consent motions—LCMs—but they can be seen regularly on the Table in the House when the UK Government seek to legislate for matters that are partially or fully devolved for some practical reason. If the legislation makes sense, the Scottish and Welsh Governments and the Northern Ireland Executive can give permission to the UK Government to do that. There are many circumstances in which that is appropriate. However, on this occasion they clearly do not believe there is a clear case for that. I would like to know what the Minister would do, should the Welsh and Scottish Governments withhold legislative consent. What discussion has the Minister had with UK Government Law Officers about the Government’s approach and, again, what would be the costs to the public purse? I suggest that the Minister makes ready a tidy little pot of money to deal with all the legal proceedings that will emanate from the Bill if it goes ahead in its current form. That will really put paid to the suggestion that the Bill will benefit the taxpayer. It will cost the taxpayer a lot of money.

I appreciate that the Minister would not do anything other than defend the Bill as an entirely reserved matter, but does he accept that its provisions will have significant consequences for matters that are wholly or partially devolved to a series of Administrations around the UK? Yes or no?

To be fair, Sir Alan, I asked the Minister a number of questions. He has not answered the major question about whether the legislation applies retrospectively to contractual arrangements in the public sector in the devolved Administrations and across local government in England and elsewhere, and about what he believes the consequences will be. He makes out that this is all some slightly trifling matter that is not going to cause problems. Often, facility time, check-off and whatever else are written into contractual provisions and exist in arrangements that are made by devolved Administrations with their employees about their contracts. Will the legislation apply retrospectively, and what does the Minister believe will be the impact on the ability of Administrations to make contractual arrangements, as they have done before? Or is he admitting that the Bill interferes with their ability to do that?

I want to respond briefly to a number of comments made by the Minister. Obviously, he maintained his position that this is a wholly reserved matter and claimed—shamefully—that this was about extending devolution by the back door. We on this side would contend that this is attempting to extinguish part of devolution by the back door. The Government have made that very clear.

The Minister is essentially saying to the Committee and to the public, “Trust me, it’s not devolved in any way: it’s all fine,” but we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central that the Government’s record on this is wobbly at best. They have already suffered serious defeats in the Supreme Court at great cost to the taxpayer. I would expect, at the very least, the Government to have taken the most precautionary and consultative approach before proceeding with matters of this seriousness. The Minister did not want to detail all the different meetings or give a running commentary. I gently suggest to the Committee that that was because not many meetings, if any, took place before the Bill was published. That is certainly the impression we have been left with by the Scottish and Welsh Governments, let alone local government in England.

The Minister was very hazy on his expectations of the impact of the Bill on existing contractual arrangements, either retrospectively or going forward. I hope that he and the Government have very deep pockets, because I sense that this is not an idle threat; there are real, serious legal objections to the Bill and its implications and I imagine that a number of the bodies that are raising these concerns will take action over this. It is for that reason that I give the Minister a chance to exempt himself from that cost and trouble to the taxpayer, by pressing amendments 11 and 12 to a vote.

I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 3, page 2, line 5, after “engaged” insert “solely”.

We have already touched on aspects of clause 3, but there is a more substantive debate to be had on it. As Committee members will know, the clause seeks to introduce a requirement that in “important public services”, 40% of those entitled to vote must vote in favour of industrial action, and that there must be a 50% turnout. In certain important public services, that will mean that if 50% of members participate in the ballot, 80% of those voting must vote in favour in order for a strike to take place. For example, if 500 members are balloted, at least 250 members must vote in the ballot and 200 must vote yes for industrial action to go ahead.

As I have said, if the Government were serious about increasing participation, whether in important public services or anywhere else, they would be taking the measures that we are proposing. I certainly believe, and I am sure my fellow Opposition Members would agree, that the Government’s real agenda is to prevent public sector workers in particular, on whom the legislation will have a significantly greater impact, from raising legitimate grievances and opposing changes to their pay, pensions and rights at work planned in this Parliament. One might even suspect that the Government had such plans in their agenda for the months ahead.

While politics are clearly at the heart of the Bill and this clause in particular, the Government have other legal obstacles to manoeuvre. As I outlined in the debate on the last clause, many legal experts believe that treating abstentions as “no” votes for industrial action is undemocratic and potentially illegal, and conflicts with international standards. International supervisory bodies such as the International Labour Organisation state that only votes cast should be taken into account.

The next hurdle for the Government will be of particular interest to noble Friends and Members in the other place when they read the debates we have had on the Floor of the House and in Committee. The Conservative manifesto in the 2015 general election referred to making provisions regarding only “essential public services”. That was also the specific term used in Her Majesty’s most Gracious Speech, delivered on 27 May 2015:

“My Government will bring forward legislation to reform trade unions and to protect essential public services against strikes.”

In a previous life, I was involved in drafting a line in Her Majesty’s speech. Obviously, it was subject to Her Majesty’s approval, and I am glad she delivered it. A great degree of rigour and attention is paid to the specific wording, so that Her Majesty feels confident with it and it reflects the Government’s intent very clearly. That is an important point.

“Essential” is the word used in International Labour Organisation conventions, and it has a very narrow legal definition. To quote an ILO general survey, the definition is restricted to services

“the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population”.

Transport services, public transport, public education, port authorities, postal services and others all fall outside that category. Given that, I very much suspect—perhaps the Minister can enlighten us when he gets to his feet—that the Government realised that the legislation was poorly drafted and that using those words would leave it vulnerable to serious legal challenge, so they sought to row back, instead changing the wording to “important” public services, as we now see in the Bill. Disturbingly, those public services are to be defined by the Secretary of State in as yet unseen secondary legislation.

A number of categories of services are referred to in the clause using very broad terms, such as “health services”. There is

“education of those aged 17 and under”,

which we discussed in the devolution debate; I do not want to go over old ground, but that causes particular issues for differing education systems across the UK. “Fire services” are referred to, as are “transport services”—in a very general sense, and we have already heard how those are excluded from the ILO definition. There is

“the decommissioning of nuclear installations and management of radioactive waste and spent fuel”,

and “border security”.

Those provisions, alongside the consultation document, are so wide that they could apply to nearly every area of publicly funded activity. One might think that the Government have taken their chance not only to ensure that they can potentially avoid legal challenges—although I think this could still be subject to one—but to draw the definition as wide as possible so that everybody would be forced into the 40% threshold. What assessment has the Minister made of whether it is predicted that the other place will still feel bound by the Salisbury convention, given that the clause clearly breaches a Conservative manifesto commitment, let alone the specific text that was in the Gracious Speech?

What assessment has the Minister made of the effect that the proposals will have on women? We have discussed that at length already, but TUC research suggests that nearly three quarters—73%—of trade union members working in important public services, as defined by the Government, are women. I imagine that Committee members will vote on the proposals shortly; does the Minister think it is appropriate that they do not yet know for certain to whom they will apply? We have to take our responsibilities as legislators in this place very seriously. We do not know what this secondary legislation is, but the Government are again saying, “Trust us, trust us. We’ll be all right. We’re going to put this stuff down and you’ll be fine with it.” That is not acceptable. The Bill has been scheduled for some time; the Government have had plenty of time to introduce the regulations and they have not. What we know for certain, as I said, is that the proposals will impact on public policy areas that are wholly devolved, and that will have the implications we have discussed.

At this stage, it is also important to challenge one particular myth that is being peddled by those in favour of the Bill. It is a particular favourite of the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) who, on Second Reading, suggested that unions are required to meet a 75% threshold in Germany. For the record, that is not accurate. Some German trade unions have adopted rules requiring 75% support for industrial action among members, but those are decisions taken by the union within its own democratic structures, not imposed by the state.

I agree absolutely. I think that sits alongside the comments made by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West that the unions want to have a high turnout and that they want to be able to have as much confidence as possible among their members, because of the fact they cannot sanction members for not taking part in the industrial action as agreed. It is important to look at the German example, because statutory thresholds, as proposed by the UK Government, would actually be unconstitutional in Germany. We heard about international comparisons in the oral evidence, and the Bill, in so many respects—this is yet another one—puts us in a very serious place in terms of the international league of whether these measures restrict or infringe on long-established rights. Therefore, we will oppose the clause, because we think it is ill thought out, partisan, open to serious legal challenge, breaches the devolution settlement and will not do anything to better industrial relations.

Amendment 4 is a probing amendment that provides that the 40% threshold should only apply to those who are normally engaged “solely” in the provision of important public services or ancillary activities. We need to discuss this very important issue, and I hope that the Minister can enlighten us on it. The amendment is designed to highlight the problems that unions will face when trying to determine whether the 40% threshold applies. It is not clear whether individuals who spend only part of their time providing important public services will be covered by the 40% yes vote requirement.

Let us take, for example, education unions planning to ballot staff in a school with a sixth form, where they might be involved in the provision of education to young people of different ages. Trade union officials will find it very difficult to assess whether staff who teach both pupils aged under 17 and those in years 12 and 13 are “normally engaged” in providing “important public services”. That will be particularly problematic where teachers’ work schedules vary during the academic year. It is just one of the many implementation problems that I do not think the Government can have seriously thought through if they intend to proceed with the Bill as drafted.

Amendment 5 is also designed to encourage debate. It provides that the 40% yes vote requirement should apply to those employed in the provision of “essential public services” rather than “important public services”. As I have said, the Government’s proposed restrictions extend well beyond the definition of “essential services” recognised by the ILO. The Government claim that the proposed thresholds are justifiable because they do not introduce a complete ban—some would beg to differ—on the right to strike in “important public services”. They therefore argue that the ILO standards do not apply.

However, the Employment Lawyers Association warned the Government against introducing thresholds to services not covered by the ILO definition of “essential services” in its response to the BIS consultation on balloting thresholds. The response continued:

“ELA cautions that if the provisions”—

in the Bill and any accompanying regulations—

“are not drawn as narrowly as possible then the Government runs the risk of a challenge on the basis that the imposition of the raised thresholds infringes Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Any restrictions on the right to strike must not be greater than necessary to pursue a legitimate aim and…necessary in a democratic society.”

That is why it is important that we look at the ILO definition. It is very tightly defined, referring to public safety and so on. It is very clearly defined in terms of where things would be problematic. The Government are going well beyond that boundary. The ILO has criticised Governments who have introduced thresholds for industrial action ballots. The ILO committee on freedom of association has concluded:

“The requirement of a decision by over half of all the workers involved in order to declare a strike is excessive and could excessively hinder the possibility of carrying out a strike, particularly in large enterprises.”

The ILO has called on Governments who have imposed statutory thresholds to amend their national laws to bring them into closer conformity with the principles of freedom of association. Dare I make some international comparisons? The countries that it has gone after include Bulgaria, Honduras and Nigeria. Does this country really want to be in that territory? Not only are we going well beyond what a near neighbour in the EU—Germany—believes would be unconstitutional, but we will be putting ourselves in the league of countries that are being criticised by the ILO, such as Bulgaria, Honduras and Nigeria. That simply is not good enough.

I come now to amendment 6. The 40% yes vote requirement will apply not only to individuals directly involved in the delivery of important public services, but to individuals normally engaged in

“activities that are ancillary to the provision of important public services.”

As a result, hundreds of thousands of union members working in large parts of the private services sector are likely to be caught by the 40% threshold. The amendment would therefore delete the reference to ancillary activities. Again, it will be very hard to define and identify who is involved in such activities. The Government are clearly trying to apply the provision as widely as possible and certainly well beyond what the ILO would expect.

Further to amendment 5, amendment 9 would define essential public services in line with the ILO definition. We want the wording to mean

“services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population”.

We have some very serious issues for the Minister to explain. He needs to explain how these passages will be implemented. When we look at international legal comparisons, the potential impact of the measure, the breach that I referred to and the risk of legal challenge, we are experiencing many of the same challenges as we discussed under the last clause, and I hope that the Minister can explain his position.

Will the Minister give way?

The Minister has given a very convoluted explanation of why the wording was changed from “essential” to “important” public services, which does not bear scrutiny. Was it because he was worried that if he used the phrase “essential services”, it would be subject to legal challenge? On the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central has just made, will the Minister commit to publishing the regulations before the Bill leaves the Commons and goes to the other place? It is important that the public see them.

Although the Minister gave his explanation in funny terms, I find it unbelievable, quite frankly. It is a very convoluted reasoning. The reality is that the ILO defines essential services in a very restrictive way because the international legal consensus, and indeed the international human rights consensus, is that the right to strike and to freedom of association should be restricted only in very narrow cases. That is why it is a tight definition. It is intriguing that the Government have chosen to move away from that. They clearly want to expand the restrictions much more widely. I have already given the example of Germany, where such provisions would be unconstitutional.

I must take issue with the Minister’s unwillingness to give us a commitment on the publication of the regulations. He said that there was a consultation. Like all consultations on the Bill, it took only eight weeks rather than the usual 12. All the consultations were done over the summer to frustrate the input from sectors such as teaching, as many of the profession’s union members are away from school at that time. It is an odd situation, and a serious one for Parliament, that we are discussing severe restrictions on the exercise of people’s democratic rights, yet the Minister is saying, “Trust me. We’ll publish them. They’ll be all right. It’ll be fine.” The regulations should have been published alongside the Bill so that we could see what the Government intend. Is the Minister going to publish them 20 minutes before the Bill gets Royal Assent, if we ever get that far? That is simply not good enough, and I would like the Minister to consider publishing the draft regulations. We need to get some clearer intent before the Bill leaves the Commons, and certainly before it gets into the other place. For that reason I am keen to test the will of the Committee on amendment 5.

That is an intriguing historical example. The hon. Gentleman’s point is a good one. Large parts of the legislation have not been thought through and appear to have been drafted by people who simply do not understand how trade unions operate in the modern workforce. The witnesses the Government called forward certainly did not know that. As my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff Central and for Sunderland Central have made clear, there are serious practical implications. I would therefore like to press amendment 5 to a vote, with the clear message that we believe the Government should stick to their manifesto and to their own Queen’s Speech, and stick to the definition of essential services laid out by the ILO.

In the case of amendment 4, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 5, in clause 3, page 2, leave out lines 6 to 8 and insert—

“the provision of essential public services.”—(Stephen Doughty.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 4, page 2, leave out lines 32 to 34 and insert—

“(2B) The voting paper must state the trade dispute to which the proposed industrial action relates.”

We now come to another area of the Bill where I believe that the Government’s true intent is to frustrate the rights of trade unions to take action, to provide grounds for vexatious legal challenges and essentially, in the words of Sara Ogilvie from Liberty, to make their rights “illusory in practice”. While some aspects of the Bill are designed to stop industrial action going ahead in the first instance, others are there to frustrate the industrial action that does go ahead. This clause is very much in the latter vein.

The hon. Member for Glasgow South West, who has briefly left the room, spoke powerfully in opposition to the Bill on Second Reading. He said that the Government were trying to tie up trade unions in blue tape, and I think he is right. Clause 4 will require trade unions to provide more information on the ballot paper, but unions are already required to ask members on the ballot about the type of industrial action they are willing to take—for example, strike action, action short of a strike, a work to rule and so on. Failure to comply with the clause would enable employers to apply for an injunction to stop the strike going ahead or for damages after industrial action has started. I am keen to see the burden and cost of Government regulation fall wherever possible, and the Government’s one-in, two-out rule is a good starting place. The Government’s own words in their statement online are:

“To reduce the number of new regulations for businesses, the government operates a ‘one-in, two-out’ rule. This helps prevent government policymakers from creating new regulations that increase costs for business and voluntary organisations.

Where policymakers do need to introduce a new regulation, and where there is a cost to business when complying with that regulation, departments have to remove or modify existing regulation(s) to the value of £2 of savings for every pound of cost imposed.”

As this is an example of a significant level of new regulation, I hope the Minister will rise to his feet and inform the Committee which two regulations applying to trade unions will now be removed. He does not want to do so at the moment; I hope he will come to that in his speech.

This additional blue tape and regulation risks making industrial relations in the UK worse, not better. With new regulation come additional risks of litigation, and to reduce that risk many unions are likely to include lengthy descriptions of the dispute on the ballot paper that go well beyond those defined in the clause. That will risk confusing members and confusing the issue when we should be having things as simple and straightforward as possible. It will also mean, in a similar vein to other parts of the Bill, that it is more difficult for unions and employers to resolve disputes and avoid the very strikes and industrial action that the Government say they want to avoid. Many unions may find it difficult to convince members that they should accept a settlement that does not deal with all the issues listed on the ballot paper. Unions may also be reluctant to reach an agreement on part of the dispute for fear that it will prevent future industrial action on other aspects of the dispute. Alongside the Government’s wider proposed changes—lifting the ban on the use of agency workers, for example—that will unbalance workplace relations, assisting employers to plan for future strike action by lining up agency staff.

I ask the Minister to explain why, if the Government’s stated intent to reduce regulation and avoid costs is as defined on their website, it is one rule for the business and voluntary sector and another for the trade unions. The effect of the clause will be to introduce a level of regulation that ties unions up in blue tape and causes a whole series of effects for them.

I would be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say. The whole Bill seems to be about creating additional burdens, which will, quite frankly, make illusory a lot of the rights that trade unions and their members—ordinary workers up and down the country—enjoy at the moment and put those people at serious risk of not being able to execute those rights.

Let me turn to the amendments, which have been tabled to encourage debate. We will decide whether to press any to a Division when we have heard what the Minister says. Amendment 14 would require unions to state on the ballot paper

“the trade dispute to which the proposed industrial action relates”,

but they would no longer be required to provide a detailed description of “every aspect of the dispute”—that very amorphous term that the Government are using.

Amendment 15 would require unions to provide a description of the trade dispute, rather than a

“reasonably detailed indication of the matter or matters in issue”.

In general, reducing and simplifying the information about the dispute that unions are required to provide on the voting paper would assist in the earlier settlement of disputes. As a result, workers would return to work faster. Disputes would be less likely to escalate, and there would be fewer legal challenges, reducing costs for employers and unions. That is an important point.

The Bill is muddying the waters around straightforward and transparent processes that already exist. Essentially, we are providing a very big space for the lawyers’ hands to come in and for a lot of cost to be expended on behalf of business, the public sector and trade union members. We should avoid legal proceedings wherever we can and encourage arbitration, negotiation and the reasonable settlement of disputes without recourse to the courts. All the proposals in the Bill will increase costs for all the parties involved.

Amendment 16, approaching things in a different way, would remove the requirement to describe the types of action short of a strike on the ballot paper. Amendment 17 would remove the requirement on trade unions to specify the timetable for different forms of action. Instead, trade unions would be required simply to state whether the proposed action is continuous or intermittent, which is perfectly reasonable. That would clearly set out whether it would be one long piece of industrial action or one with numerous parts to it.

Amendment 18 would remove the requirement on trade unions to specify the timetable for different forms of action. Instead, trade unions would be required to state when the industrial action was scheduled to start—in principle, that is reasonable—and when any discontinuous industrial action would come to an end. If we are going to start requiring unions to set out detailed explanations and timetables on how they will conduct the action and so on, action may be stirred up at earlier stages in disputes and people will be encouraged not to seek arbitration and reconciliation. Instead, conflict will be encouraged. Amendment 19, taking a slightly different approach, would completely remove the requirement on unions to specify the timetable for different forms of action.

The amendments are intended to tease out of the Minister how he sees this part of the legislation operating in practice and make him justify why it is necessary. Balloting is already a straightforward process. It is already clear what people are voting on and what types of action are being proposed. This part of the Bill simply seeks to muddy the waters and may result in a lot of expensive litigation.

The debate has been interesting. As the Minister will appreciate, the role of the Opposition is to table amendments to expand on a series of issues, not necessarily to push them all to a vote. The debate has been helpful in eliciting from the Minister various responses about the intent behind clause 3.

I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central said about the concerns of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development and employers’ lawyers relating to the clause. I agree with her that, in many respects, the clause, the Government’s intent and, I would gently say, some of the Minister’s comments can be seen as patronising to trade union members. The suggestion that there is widespread ignorance about the disputes on which members are balloted and that they are somehow under the Jedi powers of their union steward masters is a fantasy. If Members speak to any ordinary trade union member or person affected, they will find that people are very clear: they know what issues are affecting their pay and pensions.

I completely agree. It is important to recognise something that Government Members seem to have lost in this debate: the vast majority of trade union members and workers, whether in public services or the private sector, will seek to resolve disputes through very reasonable mechanisms, such as talking to line managers, colleagues and others in the management of a firm or public service, before they reach the stage of even contemplating industrial action or disputes. Most people act in a human way and want to resolve things as easily as they can. It is only when frustrations build up and concerns are not listened to—for example, on health and safety or fundamental disputes with the Government about restrictions on pay or pensions—that things reach the point where industrial action is considered. I say gently that the Government do not appear to understand how things operate in practice.

Indeed, I can barely think of any possible examples in which a trade union would not explain the progress of negotiations and what might be going on and feed back to its members what is happening in a workplace.

That is a very important example. The Minister selectively looking at a couple of ballot papers proffered to him by his officials is simply not reflective of the wide degree of communications and engagement that will go on when trade union members—workers in a firm or a public service—are considering industrial action. It goes back, again, to the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West: why would trade unions want to be hoodwinking people into action? How would they then convince them to take part in it? It is just nonsense.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead makes a very good point. Also, as I said, the amendments encourage some clarity from the Government on the issue of timetables. I think the Minister said that—surely, they have in mind a plan. Actually, most trade unions operating in a dispute are trying to find a resolution from the start: industrial action is a last resort. We have to say that again and again. I imagine that in many circumstances there is no plan—they are hoping that management or Government, whoever it might be, will come forward with a reasonable solution through means other than industrial action to solve a dispute.

That is exactly the point. Indeed, as with many other parts of the Bill, it looks like it has been drafted by people who simply do not understand how trade unions operate in a modern industrial setting. It is based on assertions, ideas and myths that have been created, often by the Minister’s colleagues. I remember the Minister for the Cabinet Office using some very colourful language in this area. It does not reflect actual practice and I hope, given that the Minister is trying to set out the case for this, that he will explain whether the Department has received widespread, conclusive evidence of ignorance, with people writing in saying, “We don’t understand what’s going on, the Government must legislate”. Where is the demand for this legislation, other than in the theoretical towers of Victoria Street?

With that, I seek the Committee’s view on amendment 14 and the wording of disputes on a ballot paper. Also, in the spirit of wanting to encourage the Government to foster negotiation and allow the maximum time to achieve resolution of disputes, I wish to press amendment 19, which would remove the requirement for timetables altogether, to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

I do not intend to detain the Committee long on the clause because we have discussed part of it, but I do want to raise a couple of points. Under section 231 of the 1992 Act, trade unions are already required to inform members and relevant employers about the results of ballots—how many votes were cast, how many members voted yes and no, and the number of spoilt votes. Clause 5, as we have said, would add to the information that trade unions are required to include. They would be required to inform members and employers of the number who were entitled to vote in the ballot, whether the number of votes cast reached the 50% turnout requirement, and, if the 40% threshold applies—although, of course, we have no idea where that will apply at the moment—whether that was met.

As with many measures in the Bill, and as I outlined in the debates on previous clauses, the Government are simply seeking to introduce additional administrative requirements, which are unnecessary and designed to disrupt and deter trade unions from effectively representing their members. We will oppose this clause, for it is another example of that blue tape which, if it were proposed for any other organisation, would rightly be regarded as needless bureaucracy, and I am sure the Government would be wanting to call it out as such.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

I am getting more and more tied up in the Government’s blue tape. Much like clauses 4 and 5, this clause is designed to deter and disrupt trade unions by burdening them with additional requirements.

I am sure that we will have at a later stage an extensive discussion of the role of the certification officer, given the clauses and provisions through which the Government are attempting to expand it. This clause also touches on that issue because it will require trade unions to report to the certification officer on whether industrial action has taken place in the last 12 months, the nature of the disputes, what action was taken and the turnout and ballot results. If trade unions fail to comply, they may face severe financial penalties. Not only does this measure create significant new administrative burdens for trade unions, which do not necessarily gather those data centrally, but many are rightly asking why this new duty is necessary and what purpose it will serve.

As I hope members of the Committee know, though I am sure they will be enlightened at later stages, the certification officer is an independent agency with responsibility for regulating trade unions and employers’ associations. I am concerned, as are others, including some who spoke to the Committee during the oral evidence stage, that the role of the independent certification officer risks being politicised in a wide range of ways through the Bill. This is just one of them. I would like some assurances from the Minister, even at this stage, that the Government are aware of those concerns. Will the Government seek to ensure the integrity and separation of the certification officer? We have already heard how the role will be blurred between investigator, manager of data, executioner of orders and many other things, blurring all the principles of natural justice. It would be good to hear some assurances from the Minister.

This comes down to whether the Government think it is appropriate that an agency of the state, albeit a currently independent one, should gather detailed information about private disputes between employers and unions. Although trade unions have been vocal in their opposition thus far, I believe that many businesses and employers, if they were aware of the full implications of this clause, would object to detailed information about their workplace operations being published online and a permanent record of disputes being retained. We all know about the media organisations that harvest as much information as they can from centrally published databases and so on. I suspect that quite a lot of mischief could be caused by attempting to portray certain employers in ways that I think they would feel uncomfortable with.

I thank my hon. Friend for that very important point. While we heard oral evidence from the CBI and the BCC on a range of issues, they did not seem to be as strident and as certain in their views as on other aspects of the Bill, despite this potentially having a significant impact on businesses and employers. It would appear, I have to say, that their formal consultation with their members was perhaps more limited than one would expect for organisations that seek to represent industry and businesses up and down the country. I find that quite surprising, given the impact that this could have on disclosing information.

I completely agree. Many businesses and employers would have concerns if that were a consequence, unintended as it may be, of the legislation. There are some fundamental issues at stake in terms of the confidentiality of these types of dispute and the potential that this will prevent negotiations and concerns being dealt with in the most sensible, consensual and private way to come to a resolution.

Indeed, and it would be a strange situation were we to find a Minister in a future Committee sitting able to find many examples of ballot papers to read from, casting all sorts of aspersion on the conduct of businesses in industry and the public sector up and down the country.

I can think of all sorts of other examples. Again, the implications of this do not seem to have been properly thought through. Will the Minister briefly comment on who has requested this? Who has said they want this? Have employers, businesses and public servants up and down the country been banging on the Minister’s door saying, “We want this information out there in the public domain,” as the Bill would require?

This would not only add to the regulation of trade unions and the implications for employers; new powers for the certification officer would inevitably be followed by additional costs. The wide extension of the certification officer’s power will have significant fiscal implications. What assessment has the Minister made of the likely cost implications of the certification officer having to gather this additional information? Will it come from existing budgets, will new moneys be provided or will it be cost-neutral?

In any other sector, I am sure the Government would attack such burdensome regulations as needless officialdom that should be done away with in a bonfire of bureaucracy. Does the Minister agree that legislation affecting trade unions should be held to the same standards?

If the administrative burdens—all the blue tape—were not already sufficient to halt industrial action, make the rights of trade unions illusory and disrupt the activities of their members, and even though the ballot thresholds are rarely used elsewhere in our democracy, the Minister has yet another legislative weapon in his armoury to render the campaigns in the run-up to industrial action, which are often used to seek agreed settlement and avert strike action, impotent. Clause 7 seeks to extend the notice period that unions must provide to employers before industrial action can take place from seven days to two weeks. That is excessive and unnecessary, because trade unions are already required to provide at least one week’s notice of a ballot, allow at least two weeks for the ballot and then announce the result before giving two weeks’ notice of action. In practice, at least five weeks will pass between the start of a balloting process and any industrial action.

It is important to understand that, because the actual practice, rather than the academic approach that the Department appears to be taking to trade union activities, is what matters. Members of the Government gave all these examples in their oral evidence of people being able to prepare for disruption and everything else. Obviously those of us on this side of the Committee would want people to have the maximum amount of information and awareness with which to do that, but five weeks is a long time. Of course, in most industrial disputes such things would have been under discussion for some time. There would be an awareness of tensions and potential problems. There may have been consultative ballots in the past and evidence that there may be disruption. Industrial action is always a last resort.

I absolutely agree. In fact, I was just about to make that very point. Because of clause 4, employers will know when industrial action, if it is agreed upon, would start before the ballot is run. The information is there. There is already the five-week period, which is lengthy, and most people would consider it reasonable. Again, I believe that this measure belies the Government’s real intent. In my view and the view of the Opposition, the extended notice period will serve no legitimate purpose other than giving the employer additional time to organise the agency workers that the Government want to allow them to undermine the strike or industrial action, and to prepare for the legal challenges and the lawyers’ charter that the Bill provides.

I regularly speak to many small businesses up and down my constituency. I have a very positive relationship with them, and I have a good degree of understanding of the challenges they face. As I have repeatedly said in this Committee, we want to avoid situations in which industrial action takes place. That is not under dispute in this debate or in our discussion about the whole Bill, but we believe the Government are going too far on the restrictions on reasonable rights.

My hon. Friend speaks with a great degree of legal experience and expertise from her previous career. That is indeed the case, and it is a very important point to make. I believe this is just a case of providing opportunities to undermine, rather than seeking resolution and negotiation in a consensual manner. It again provides the potential for protracted disputes, which means that amicable settlements will be more difficult to achieve. If the Government were serious about promoting positive industrial relations, dialogue, agreement, conciliation and arbitration, they would not simply be extending time, which is already extensive, on the basis that people will be shocked if there were a tube strike tomorrow. People know well in advance if such things are happening, and it is deeply patronising to suggest otherwise.

I beg to move amendment 24, in clause 8, page 4, line 14, leave out “four months” and insert “twelve months”

The amendment would extend the period before any new ballot would be required, and reduce the risk of incompatibility of the provisions with Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights – an issue addressed by the Government in its memorandum on the Bill.

As we have discussed, Opposition Members believe that many of the measures we have scrutinised risk making industrial relations worse, not better. Clause 8 is no exception to that rule. Existing legislation provides that so long as industrial action starts within four weeks of a successful ballot, the mandate for it remains intact for as long as the dispute with the employer exists. The changes brought about by clause 8, however, will mean that trade unions are no longer required to start industrial action within four weeks. Where industrial action, whether continuous or discontinuous, lasts for more than four months, the union will be required to reballot.

The clause will have two effects. First, it will create substantial legal and administrative costs for trade unions, which spend significant sums of money on ballots to ensure the very participation that the Government say they want to encourage. I do not see that the Government appreciate the impact this will have—perhaps I am suspicious that they do—on unions in terms of costings.

Secondly, where ballots meet the Government’s thresholds, the measures will actually intensify disputes, leading to more sustained industrial action at the outset as unions try to settle disputes without the need to reballot, given the financial implications. That is a real threat, and one that I do not believe the Government have given consideration to. Again, if their intent is to prevent industrial action and strikes, why are they introducing this sort of measure? This inevitably risks worsening employment relations and creating more disruption for the wider public, which none of us wants.

The additional risks posed by the clause to industrial relations, coupled with the fact that the number of days lost to industrial action are at a historic low—my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead pointed out that the days lost to industrial action today are barely one hundredth of those lost in the 1970s, with nearly two thirds of actions lasting only one day—mean that many are rightly wondering what the purpose of the clause is.

I gently suggest to the Committee that the Government’s focus for the proposals is some particular public sector disputes relating to the Government’s proposals on pay and pension changes. In those disputes, trade unions have often relied on one ballot mandate to organise a succession of strike days over 12 months or so, to limit the immediate impact in the short term but make clear their concerns over a period and encourage the Government to negotiate on the matter. However, under the Government’s proposals, after four months, unions will be required to reballot, even if employers refuse to engage in genuine negotiations and the dispute remains unresolved. I believe this has more to do with silencing the critics of Government who want to raise legitimate grievances about pay, pensions and conditions at work.

Indeed; that is a likely intent of this. When coupled with the measures on check-off and political funds, the Government are essentially chopping off funding for trade unions and then massively increasing their costs by this measure and the other regulatory burdens imposed by the Bill. Rather than imposing additional restrictions on workers’ ability to strike, the Government should engage in genuine negotiations with trade unions.

That is a risk. Undoubtedly, when the Minister gets to his feet he will talk about ballot mandates from a long time ago legitimatising action years down the line. There is a genuine sympathy with that concern, which is why I tabled amendment 24, which would extend the period before a union would be required to reballot its members from four months to 12 months. The amendment would be likely to assist the resolution of disputes and significantly reduce the administrative cost burden for trade unions involved in protracted disputes, while avoiding the problem that the Minister will undoubtedly refer to as motivation for the clause.

It is a question of reasonableness in all these matters. Most unions want to ensure that there is a strong mandate for action if it is required, which is fair, but four months is such a short period. Given the costs involved, it reveals a different intent behind the Bill and will discourage good industrial relations.

Absolutely, and, combined with the other measures by which a vexatious employer might wish to frustrate the balloting, the wording and everything else that we have already discussed, that creates a very difficult set of circumstances that will fundamentally render illusory the right to strike, to freedom of association and to withdraw labour in furtherance of a dispute. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.

For the benefit of the Committee, will the Minister clarify where the four months come from? Why four months?

While I sympathise with some of what the Minister said, I fundamentally do not see the argument for a four-month period. This is a matter of interpretation. Twelve months provides a much better period; four months is far too short and will encourage disputes. Indeed, as many Members have said, it could encourage wildcat action, which we certainly would not condone and I am sure the Government would not want. With that in mind, I seek to press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.