Trade Union Bill

Public Bill Committee, 20 October 2015.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I shall make a few introductory remarks to explain our process for those who are new to all this. We will now start the line-by-line consideration of the Bill. As a general rule, I and my fellow Chair do not intend to call starred amendments, which have not been tabled with adequate notice. The required notice period for Public Bill Committees is three working days. Therefore, amendments should be tabled by the rise of the House on a Monday for consideration on a Thursday and by the rise of the House on a Thursday for consideration on the following Tuesday.

As I said, I will explain how the process works for those who are new to Committees. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. That shows how the selected amendments have been grouped for debate. Grouped amendments are generally on the same or similar issues. A Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called first. Other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak on all or any of the amendments in that group. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate. Bear it in mind that this is not like the main Chamber: it is pretty easy to be called here, so you do not have to rely on interventions, and interventions should be short.

At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, I shall call again the Member who moved the lead amendment. Before they finish speaking, they will need to say whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or to seek a decision. If a Member wishes to press any other amendment in a group to a vote, they need to let me know. I shall work on the assumption that the Minister wishes the Committee to reach a decision on all Government amendments that are tabled, although we have none today.

Please note that decisions on amendments take place not in the order in which the amendments are debated, but in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper. In other words, the debate occurs according to the selection and grouping list. Decisions are taken when we come to the clause that the amendment affects. I know that this is complicated, but we are in good hands with the Clerks. They will sort it all out; do not worry. New clauses are decided on after we have finished with the existing text—that is, after we have considered clause 22. I shall use my discretion to decide whether to allow a separate stand part debate on individual clauses and schedules, following the debates on the relevant amendments. Obviously, if a debate on amendments has been very long, a stand part debate may not be necessary.

I hope that all that is helpful to everyone. Members will recall that we agreed a programme motion on 13 October. It is reproduced at the end of the amendment paper and sets out the order in which we will consider the Bill, so we start with clause 1. There are no amendments to this clause, so we will start with the question that clause 1 stand part of the Bill.

Clause 1 - Meaning of “the 1992 Act”

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

It is a pleasure to open the line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. This room has rather less comfortable chairs and rather more mind-blowing wallpaper but definitely better acoustics than the room that we were in for the evidence sessions. I think that we discovered through the evidence sessions that there are deep and passionate disagreements between the different parties on the measures in the Bill, but equally I hope that we discovered that both sides are prepared to argue their points courteously and respectfully, and we will all part, I hope, as friends and colleagues at the end of it.

Clause 1 sets out that references in the Bill to “the 1992 Act” are references to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The Bill largely amends or inserts new provisions in the 1992 Act. This clause enables the shorthand form to be used throughout the Bill, and I commend it to the Committee.

Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

Sir Edward, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this room with the rest of the Committee; it is a pleasure to serve opposite the Minister and alongside many hon. Friends. I agree with the Minister that we had a lively start to consideration of the Bill during the oral evidence sessions. Fundamentally, I think that Opposition Members have explored how the Bill belies its stated intent. It is partisan. It challenges long-standing civil liberties in this country. It is poorly drafted, with significant legal implications.

Given that we are discussing clause 1, which relates to the 1992 Act—previous legislation—it is important to see the Bill in context: essentially, it is a Bill without a purpose. We heard on Second Reading, most notably from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) that given the significant reduction in industrial action over the past 30 years, it is important to question why the Bill even exists in the first place. That reduction is borne out by the statistics; the number of days lost to industrial action each year has fallen dramatically. Since 2010, on average, 647,000 days have been lost, compared with 7,213,000 lost in the 1980s. There is no problem here and the Bill goes well beyond the realms of sense in challenging the long-standing right of workers up and down this country to stand up for their rights. We heard aptly from a number of witnesses that they see many objections to the Bill. The Government are struggling to find supporters to back it up.

I declare my interest—and I am sure that other hon. Members will do the same—as a member of the GMB union and draw attention also to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Let me be clear from the outset: we intend to oppose every clause, because we consider the Bill an affront to civil liberties and the rights of workers up and down the country, and do so starting with this clause.

Clause 2 - Ballots: 50% turnout requirement

Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 2, page 1, leave out lines 9 and 10 and insert—

“(iia) in which at least 50% of those who were sent a ballot paper in accordance with section 230(2) of the 1992 Act voted, and”.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 2, in clause 2, page 1, leave out lines 9 and 10 and insert—

‘(iia) in which at least 50% of those who according to the trade union’s reasonable belief were employed by the employer in a trade dispute, and whom the union reasonably believed would be induced to take part in the industrial action, voted and”

Amendment 7, in clause 3, page 2, line 9, leave out

“were entitled to vote in the ballot”

and insert:

“according to the trade union’s reasonable belief were employed by the employer in a trade dispute, and whom the union reasonably believed would be induced to take part in the industrial action,”

Amendment 8, in clause 3, page 2, line 10, leave out

“entitled to vote in the ballot”

and insert

“sent a ballot paper in accordance with section 230(2) of the 1992 Act.”

Amendment 20, in clause 5, page 3, line 6, leave out from “individuals” to the end of the paragraph and insert

“who according to the trade union’s reasonable belief were employed by the employer in a trade dispute, and whom the union reasonably believed would be induced to take part in the industrial action”

Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

Amendments 1, 2, 7, 8, 20, 23, 21 and 22 stand in my name and the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) and for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), who are not in Committee today but are taking great interest in its proceedings.

Let me first turn to the substance of clause 2, to which our lead amendments 1 and 2 refer. The clause sets out measures by which a ballot and subsequent industrial action will only be lawful if there is a minimum 50% turnout among trade union members who are entitled to vote. Committee members will know from our evidence sessions that the overwhelming majority of trade unions and the TUC are opposed to the clause in principle and are highly concerned that it seeks to introduce excessive turnout and voting thresholds for ballots for industrial action, and that it further defines abstentions as no votes. Let me take each of these in turn.

If the clause is successful, industrial action will be lawful only if there is a minimum 50% turnout among trade union members who are entitled to vote, outside certain “important public services”—as the Government define them—as referred to in clause 3, which we will come to. A simple majority will need to vote in favour of strike action. For example, if 500 members are balloted, at least 250 must vote and at least 126 must vote yes for industrial action to go ahead.

It is important to set out at the beginning that such thresholds are rarely used anywhere else in our democracy. They were not even used in recent referendums, one of which was very significant—I am sure there will be another significant one in the next few years—and certainly not in the general election or other elections up and down the country. Much as we might wish turnout to be higher on all those occasions, I am sure that the threshold provision is relevant to the election of many members of the Committee; an extensive list has been produced by the Library.

Ministers have implied in the media and in other chat about the Bill that recent industrial action in, for example, the rail sector shows the need for the change, yet a recent ASLEF ballot for industrial action on the tube would have passed the proposed threshold, with a turnout of 81%, as would many other examples. Let us be clear: trade unions, as witnesses made repeatedly clear in their evidence, want to see high turnouts and the highest engagement when considering a matter as serious as industrial action or, indeed, a full strike. Why would they not want to? They want to see a high turnout. They want to see their members engaged. They want to be organised and to demonstrate a clear wish for action as a last resort.

Government Members have raised a number of examples of low turnouts. We could debate the merits of action in each case, but I fear—this fear is shared by many of the witnesses who gave evidence and across the trade union movement—that the Government are, in reality, simply seeking to silence unions that do not reach or narrowly miss such arbitrarily high thresholds, despite having legitimate grievances about pay, pensions or health and safety. I am thinking of one particular example: the strike referred to in evidence from the Royal College of Midwives, which was the first time in 154 years that it had taken such action. Under the Bill, that strike would have narrowly missed the threshold.

As the Minister will know, there was a lot of focus on this clause in the oral evidence sessions. While a swathe of those who gave evidence were against the introduction of thresholds, I admit that a number spoke in favour of it, although they had little evidence to back up their claims. For example, Dr Marshall of the British Chambers of Commerce spoke of how his support for thresholds was underpinned by his belief that the number of people affected by industrial action was not going down, and he emphasised extensive indirect effects. That claim was made by a number of other witnesses and by the Government. The reality is that under repeated questioning, they were unable to provide any evidence to substantiate the claim of indirect effects.

As we have made repeatedly clear, if the Government truly had altruistic intentions, they would offer clear support for our amendments in Committee. Our amendments would boost participation by expanding the use of tried and tested methods such as secure workplace balloting, which has repeatedly brought about high turnout thresholds in Central Arbitration Committee ballots and in other matters, and by bringing things into the modern age through e-balloting. We will have a lengthy discussion of these matters later, but it is crucial to underline them now. Unsurprisingly, the Government are not supporting our amendments.

John Hannett, the general secretary of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, hammered home the point that for thresholds to be met and for higher turnouts to be achieved, we must help as much as we can to get turnout up. That is especially the case in dispersed workforces such as those in the retail and distributive sectors, which operate 24/7. I have had extensive discussions with unions such as USDAW about the inherent difficulties and the time it takes to engage with small workforces such as those operating in small shops around the country. I know USDAW members operating, for example, in local Co-op stores in my constituency. They are dispersed and working long hours, and the efforts required to engage them in the process of balloting need to be made as straightforward and easy as possible. It is not a lack of concern about issues in their sector or any ballot proposal that prevents such workforces from engaging; often, it is the very real practicalities of their lives and professions. That situation is repeated across many other sectors.

Long gone are the days of huge unionised workforces in single locations. The reality is that workforces across the country are increasingly dispersed, with people working different hours and in many different locations. John Hannett said clearly:

“I have no problem with thresholds, but it is the facilities and…access”—

access to ballots in this case—

“that is the issue.”––[Official Report, Trade Union Public Bill Committee, 13 October 2015; c. 24, Q61.]

More fundamentally, the Opposition are concerned that the clause, and the Bill more generally, will undermine constructive employment relations. The reality is that the introduction of ballot thresholds will mean that unions need to take more time in the run-up to ballots to ensure necessary turnout exceeds by a significant margin whatever legal threshold the Government arbitrarily seek to set. That will inevitably divert time and effort away from finding an amicable settlement, which I am sure is what all members of the Committee want.

We do not want to see strikes or industrial action—we are well aware their consequences—so the Government should be doing everything in their power to facilitate negotiation and reasoned discussion about concerns. The reality is that the thresholds will remove the incentives for employers to seek an early resolution to a dispute. I believe that many of them will decide to wait and see whether a union can meet the strike thresholds before they make a revised offer. That is not a model for modern industrial relations.

It is also crucial that the Committee recognises that the Government are seeking to rush through these proposals without proper consideration or consultation. The Minister will know that the Regulatory Policy Committee roundly criticised the Government’s approach. It concluded that the Department’s impact assessment on ballot thresholds was “not fit for purpose.” Those are damning words. While the impact assessment estimated that the statutory thresholds contained in clauses 2 and 3 would reduce the number of days lost to industrial action, the RPC described as inadequate the Government’s

“assessment of the costs and disruption caused, and its impact on the economy”.

That underlines the sense that we got from many witnesses that grand claims were being made about the indirect effects of industrial action, but they were simply not substantiated by evidence.

It is worth noting that, in the previous Parliament, the RPC issued just over 2,000 opinions, but there were only 14 instances in which a Department proceeded to the next stage of the policy process on the basis of an impact assessment rated by the RPC as “not fit for purpose.” Will this be another example of flying in the face of common sense and the views of a respected independent body?

The clause defines abstentions as no votes for industrial action. We heard repeatedly from witnesses—in particular, from those with legal expertise in the field—that that is undemocratic. Others went as far as to say that that is illegal. International agencies with responsibility for supervising complaints with human rights standards have repeatedly criticised the use of strike ballot thresholds in countries across the world. The International Labour Organisation stated that, in strike ballots, only votes cast should be taken into account.

The Government’s proposals go well beyond what is endorsed by internationally recognised standards. I asked the Minister in his oral evidence session what assessment he had made of legal challenge to the Bill and he said,

“we are not anticipating legal costs to fight.”––[Official Report, Trade Union Public Bill Committee, 15 October 2015; c. 165, Q410.]

I am sure we will return to that again and again, because there is a strong weight of evidence to suggest that the Government will face significant legal costs from the Bill, and not just on this issue, but on many of the provisions on picketing and the implications for the devolution settlement, to which we will come in due course.

The Minister’s answer stood in stark contrast to the weight of legal opinion the Committee heard. I refer in particular to a comment from Stephen Cavalier of Thompsons Solicitors, who said,

“the provisions under the ILO convention specifically say that an abstention should not be treated as a no vote, and that is a clear area of potential illegality. There are not similar thresholds in any other European Union member states or Council of Europe convention states. The Bill introduces a new requirement that is likely to be found to be unlawful. In particular, the treating of an abstention as a no vote is likely to be subject to legal challenge.”––[Official Report, Trade Union Public Bill Committee, 13 October 2015; c. 33, Q79.]

We could not get a clearer opinion than that from a respected firm of solicitors who engage in trade union and employment law. That view about the inevitability of legal challenge was shared by Shane Enright of Amnesty, Sara Ogilvie of Liberty, Professor Keith Ewing and the representatives of the Welsh and the Scottish Governments in relation to a wide range of issues.

The amendments in this group attempt to address and expose other concerns we have on this clause and related clauses. We believe that, in this Bill, the Government are deliberately attempting to introduce the maximum number of obstacles and risks for trade unions as they go about exercising their democratic rights. Our amendments are designed to challenge that and to provide clarity in the regrettable circumstance that the Bill is passed in its current form.

On amendment 1, as I explained earlier clause 2 provides that industrial action will only be lawful if at least 50% of those who are entitled to vote participate in the ballot. Many organisations, including the TUC, are concerned that employers will rely on the wording of the clause to bring legal challenges. Given previous attempts to frustrate union activity, there is reason to suspect that employers will argue that some members who were entitled to vote did not receive a ballot paper, that more members were entitled to vote than were balloted and, therefore, that the minimum 50% turnout was not met. Our amendment would provide that the 50% turnout requirement should apply only to members who were sent a ballot paper. The amendment would provide trade unions with increased certainty that they have complied with the 50% turnout requirement and that they are not subject to vexatious claims or attempts to undermine ballots that have been undertaken in good faith.

Ian Mearns (Labour, Gateshead)

Of course, in all of these things we want reasonable people to behave reasonably, but the new ballot thresholds may provide a perverse incentive to employers not to seek an amicable resolution to a potential strike situation because of the heightened likelihood of a no vote with, first, people who do not vote counting against and, secondly, the possibility that the threshold might not be met. An amicable settlement will become less likely, particularly if an employer—there are some employers like this—feels that it is an advantage to press it to the ultimate sanction.

Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

Indeed. I also suspect that that would be the case if employees suspect that an employer will use badly drafted clauses such as this to attempt to bring legal proceedings against the conduct of a ballot. This is all about ensuring the balance of power and responsibility between employers and employees in order to promote dialogue, negotiation and settlement. I agree with my hon. Friend that there are many provisions in the Bill that seek to undermine that balance and, therefore, undermine the possibility of negotiations that would ultimately prevent industrial action or strikes.

Amendment 2 seeks to protect trade unions from legal challenges in the event that they may have inadvertently sent a ballot paper to an individual who is not entitled to vote because they are not employed by the employer involved in the dispute. That is an important point in exposing some of the risks in the Bill as currently drafted. Business structures in the UK are increasingly complicated, and outsourcing is prevalent in many companies. Companies use many different structures and set-ups to conduct their operations. As a result—some members of the Committee might be surprised by this—individuals are often not aware of who is their legal employer. The amendment would mean that unions could rely on information provided by their members about who they believe their employer to be, rather than needing to make additional inquiries of the employer. The amendment also states that the 50% turnout requirement will only apply to individuals

“whom the union reasonably believed would be induced to take part in the industrial action”

when the ballot was issued. That wording would bring clause 2 in line with existing case law on industrial action ballots and would mean that unions are less vulnerable to vexatious legal challenges. Will the Minister share whether he believes that the clause, as it stands, is in line with existing case law on ballots and whether risks such as those I have exposed here exist?

Ian Mearns (Labour, Gateshead)

Another clause will remove the check-off system for some employers. The check-off system provides, through the payroll records, a record for employers of trade union members in a particular employment situation. Removing the check-off system, tied with clause 2, removes the ability of employers to know who is eligible to vote in a strike ballot.

Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

That is an important point. During our considerations we will see that, rather than hanging together coherently, the Bill belies its original drafting intent and is more like a Swiss cheese full of holes. Many aspects of the Bill do not sit together well because they are being put together for a different purpose than what the Government say they are trying to achieve.

Amendments 7 and 8 would apply similar principles to those that I have just laid out, to clause 3 of the Bill which deals with the proposed 40% threshold. I know we will come to that in due course. We have a number of serious concerns about the 40% threshold that go beyond even our concerns about the 50% threshold, but the same principles exist. If we are to have thresholds, we need to ensure that unions will not be opened to all sorts of vexatious legal challenges.

Amendment 20 would apply a similar principle to the reporting requirements on ballots outlined in clause 5 of the Bill. Amendment 23 would remove the requirement on trade unions to take the responsibility of informing members and employers whether the 50% turnout threshold was met and, where relevant, whether the 40% turnout threshold was met. I do not understand why the Bill—evidenced throughout its text—seeks to bog down trade unions in extra red tape, particularly when the Government claim that it is all about reducing regulation and burdens. Surely employers would be able to easily calculate whether a trade union has met any statutory thresholds applied using the numbers provided by the trade union? I really do not see why this reporting requirement is necessary.

Tom Blenkinsop (Labour, Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland)

Does my hon. Friend think this goes beyond the percentages required for a ballot? The fact is that companies with recognised trade unions on site have either gone through voluntary recognition or compulsory recognition, which means that the workforce have already been balloted on whether they want a trade union representative liaising on their behalf with an employer. Is this legislation not going way beyond ballots and actually trying to give employers the ability to de-recognise unions across the country in all sorts of different workplaces, public or private?

Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I believe that the Bill has many sinister intents. There are many provisions that can be used to tip the balance between employers and employees well beyond what would be reasonably expected in a democratic society. We heard during the evidence sessions that the Bill and these provisions put us at the bottom of the league when it comes to international labour standards and the rights of workers and trade unions.

Amendments 21 and 22 are to clause 5 and are consequential to other amendments for consistency.

Before I conclude on this group, it is worth referring to some of the comments. Many comments were made about this set of proposals in the written and oral evidence and it is important to bring the Committee’s attention to a number of them.

The Royal College of Nursing said that:

“The changes that are proposed…will do nothing for the improvement of industrial relations. The emphasis on ‘strikes’ and seeing all industrial action through the prism of strikes is misleading. This is at a time when the number of disputes is low compared to the past. The effect of the proposals to set thresholds”—

and a whole series of other measures—

“is not a ‘neutral’ step, rather it further strengthens the power already held by employers in workplace disputes now.”

Chris Stephens (Scottish National Party, Glasgow South West)

The hon. Gentleman has made an excellent speech. One of the other consequences of the thresholds that came out in the evidence was organisations concerned about a real impact on gender equality issues and on women workers trying to pursue industrial action. Is the hon. Gentleman concerned, as I am, that that could lead to a situation in which the gender pay gap widens as a result of this legislation?

Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point, which was made on Second Reading and by a number of witnesses. The Bill has a disproportionate impact on women, many of whom would be standing up on issues such as disparities in equal pay. We have repeatedly heard how, despite the Equal Pay Act being so many years ago, the reality is that women earn significantly less than men for the same hour of work conducted, particularly in certain sectors. Unions play a crucial role in standing up for those women. Importantly, I mentioned the diffuse nature of the workforce in sectors such as retail, highlighted by USDAW and others. A lot of women work in those sectors, and there will be a disproportionate impact.

Turning to some of the other evidence, we heard from the GMB which underlined the point I made that thresholds will lead to unions taking more time in the run-up to ballots to ensure the necessary turnout. It stated in written evidence that

“Employers will be encouraged to sit on their hands and wait to see if the threshold can be reached rather than address the underlying issues in the dispute.”

USDAW, which I have referred to a number of times, said:

“The best method to ensure high levels of workplace democracy is to make it as easy as possible to vote and to ensure that each vote counts equally. Under the proposed system of ballot thresholds, an individual choosing not to vote is likely to have more of an impact on the outcome of the ballot than someone choosing to vote against industrial action. If an individual votes against industrial action, their vote will be added to the turnout threshold even if they are in the minority, meaning that their vote could help to ensure that the ballot threshold is met. However, if someone chooses to abstain, their vote will not be added to the turnout threshold potentially meaning that, even if the vast majority of votes cast were in favour of action, the ballot will not meet the threshold requirements. As such—”

—USDAW is categorical about this

“the proposed ballot thresholds will clearly be detrimental to workplace democracy.”

I have another piece of evidence from Unison:

“In the UK an absent vote is not regarded as a negative one. There are a range of reasons why trade union members might not vote.”

It then gives a very practical example:

“There might be a positive decision to abstain. They might be on holiday or ill. They might not have an opinion on the dispute and rely on their colleagues to make their views clear.”

Tom Blenkinsop (Labour, Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland)

Does my hon. Friend agree that they can be in management and also in the trade union, and it is dependent on the employer to recognise that member of management within the business unit, although not necessarily in their branch?

Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

That is indeed the case. To touch on the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West, low-paid workers are more likely to move and change address, and they might not regularly update the trade union on their latest details.

Unison is very clear:

“Rather than enabling such members to participate more easily in trade union ballots, the Trade Union Bill will restrict the democratic rights of working people and the ability of trade unions to represent their members in the workplace. It will ultimately lead to a diminishment of workplace democracy.”

We also had a response from UCATT, an important union representing workers in the construction sector. We did not hear from UCATT in the oral evidence sessions, which was a shame, but it has submitted written evidence, which says:

“It should be also noted that for trade unions taking strike action is always a last resort, no union asks members to lose money on a whim, it is only called for following an end to protracted negotiations that 90% of the time reach an amicable settlement.”

That point cannot be overemphasised. Unions want to find resolutions to disputes, but the Bill puts a whole series of barriers in the way of successfully resolving disputes.

Finally, it is important to look at some of the Bill’s potential legal contraventions. I mentioned the evidence given by Thompsons Solicitors. It also submitted evidence to the Government’s consultation, the conduct of which was significantly lacking, as identified by the Regulatory Policy Committee. In section 10 of the submission from Thompsons Solicitors to the Department on the consultation on ballot thresholds in important public services, it says:

“The ballot thresholds in ‘important public services’ will engage Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Any restriction on the right protected by Article 11 must be ‘prescribed by law’ and ‘necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others’. To be ‘prescribed by law’ the proposed legal framework must have sufficient clarity and precision to enable the trade union on whom the restriction is imposed to regulate its conduct accordingly (i.e. to know exactly which of its members the additional threshold applies to). There is a very real prospect, on the evidence so far, that the government’s attempts to meet this standard will fail. It is completely unacceptable to palm responsibility for identifying whether a particular member is covered by the additional threshold off on to the trade union, (paragraph 17 of the consultation). The problem will be particularly acute when considering ‘mixed’ balloting constituencies—i.e. ones including some members who are covered by the additional ballot threshold, and some who are not.”

The complexity and uncertainty created by the way the Bill is drafted provides all sorts of grounds for legal challenge and undermines the ability of unions to stand up for their workers. Industrial action must always be seen as a last resort.

Ian Mearns (Labour, Gateshead)

My hon. Friend makes a powerful speech. We are in a period of historically low levels of industrial action, with only about 300,000 days lost to strike action in the last year or so, compared with about 130 million days lost to sickness absence. From that perspective, we are looking at such a low level of disruption from industrial action compared to sickness and industrial illness. It accounts for just 300,000 days, as compared to 130 million.

Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

The statistics my hon. Friend quotes are very accurate. During the oral evidence sessions, we mentioned a number of times that the impact of industrial action on actual days lost, whether to customers or parents or users of the health service, is very small compared to the number of days lost for other reasons. We only have to look at the statistics collected by Transport for London on lost customer hours. Far more customer hours are lost due to signal failures, broken-down trains, weather and so on than as a result of industrial action. In the words of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the Government’s plans to reform trade union law are an “outdated response” given the challenges that employers actually face today, many of which my hon. Friend referred to.

Ian Mearns (Labour, Gateshead)

One passenger group working on railway delays estimated that more working hours were lost from people being delayed on their train journeys than were lost from industrial action taken by railway workers.

Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

That is indeed the case. It is certainly borne out by the evidence that I have seen from Transport for London. The Committee has heard from a number of train companies and representatives of passenger organisations, and indeed they also implied that this was the case. The reality is that the impacts of industrial action are very small. In conclusion, I fear that the Bill and especially clause 2 will make industrial relations worse, not better. Introducing arbitrary thresholds beyond international norms, potentially in ways that are illegal, and without any clear evidence of need underpinning that or any accompanying measures to ensure the maximum participation possible—as I said, we will return to this—suggest an ill political intent, quite frankly. That is why we will oppose clause 2 today, and we may seek to move any one of these amendments to a vote, depending on what the Minister has to say.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

We will now have a debate. Please keep in order by mentioning the word “threshold” every few minutes.

Jo Stevens (Labour, Cardiff Central)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I draw the Committee’s attention again to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I was a part-owner and director of a trade union law firm prior to election in May, and I am a member of the GMB and Unison trade unions. Unusually, I would like to start by agreeing with those in the party opposite sitting on the Front Bench. In responding to concerns about participation levels and thresholds in the election of police and crime commissioners, the Home Secretary said:

“I never set a turnout threshold for any election, and I’m not going to do it now”.

She continued:

“For the first time ever they”—

police and crime commissioners—

“will have a democratic mandate for the people for the work that they’re doing”.

That is probably just as well, because the Home Secretary’s mandate for police and crime commissioners was an average turnout of just 14.7%. While the Home Secretary would not place a threshold on the election of those who run our police forces, we are here today looking at the very same issue for trade union members deciding whether to take industrial action as a last resort. The thresholds proposed in the Bill are arbitrary, as we have heard. They are out of kilter with international standards in law, and they simply do not make sense.

Let us take the ballot held by the Royal College of Midwives last year on whether to undertake industrial action. It was the first such ballot in the college’s 134-year history, and it was won with a very clear margin: 82% of those voting were in favour of industrial action, and 8% were against. Despite that vast margin of support, because the turnout was 49% of eligible members, that proposed industrial action could not legally have taken place had the Bill received Royal Assent at the time. It could not have taken place because every vote not cast would have been counted as a vote against industrial action. Yet, had a few more thousand midwives voted against the action, it could legitimately have taken place. Abstentions here would perversely have more power to influence potential industrial action than the vote of a member who was opposed to it. That is a real, practical example of how ill thought out this legislation is, and how it will adversely impact on industrial relations.

I suggest to the Minister that not only does this clause make no sense, it also raises real legal concerns. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth referred to these in his opening address. The ILO states that only votes cast should be taken into account in a ballot. It has already indicated that it would accept a complaint in relation to dual ballot thresholds. Several of the written evidence submissions to the Committee highlight our position in respect of the ILO, but one statement from the Freedom of Association Committee stands out. It said:

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

There is also potential for challenge in the European Court, because under the clauses we are considering today, the minority can undermine a ballot by not voting rather than by participating. I thought this was what the Bill was all about. It gives disproportionate rights to abstentions.

The European Court of Human Rights has already ruled in the Demir case that:

“it does not follow that the government can deliberately impose a restriction on fundamental union activities and so make the position of the parties so unequal that there is no incentive to engage”.

The Bill does the exact opposite of incentivising participation, while at the same time taking no measures to remove barriers to engagement. If participation and legitimacy are the real aims of the Bill, then I urge the Minister to abandon clause 2 and accept our amendments.

Julie Elliott (Labour, Sunderland Central)

Like my colleagues, I refer to the declarations I made at the start of proceedings last week. I want to talk in practical terms about my experience of what was referred to in some of the evidence, but I will start by saying that I totally support the comments made by my hon. Friends today. The overarching thrust of the Bill is that it will make thresholds almost impossible to meet. The premise of the Bill is based on a total lack of understanding of how the real world of industrial relations works in this country today.

In the real world, industrial action is always an absolute last resort. Last week in the evidence session, some of the leaders of the largest trade unions stated that industrial action is not what trade unions are about and not what they aim for. At the end of the day, their members lose money by taking industrial action. They often represent some of the lowest-paid people in society and that is always at the forefront for any trade union leader or official when negotiating.

No one takes industrial action lightly. Trade union officials are trained today in order to avert industrial action at all costs. However, it is a legal right and is there as a last resort. That needs to be borne in mind in everything we are discussing today. The thresholds proposed in the Bill of 50% and 40% are extreme in their nature. Modern ways of working were outlined very articulately last week by the general secretary of Unison, Mr Dave Prentis, when he talked about partnership working. The big trade unions today work very closely with the employers of their members, whether in the public or private sector. Obviously, one of the thresholds applies to all, the second applies to the public sector of a yet undefined group of people.

Partnership working is about building up relationships and getting to know people and to understand the way they work and what the real issues and nubs of the problems are. Some of the later measures in the Bill will have an impact on that working. Removing some of the facility time from people will not lead to better relationships or better partnership working. The opposite will happen and there will be a lack of trust and understanding of people and where they come from.

Some of the later proposals on check-off are probably even more significant. A ballot is the most intensive thing that any trade union and any employer prepares for, which is why the vast majority of employers in this country are not comfortable with the Bill. Drawing up the list of eligible people in the bargaining group is the most difficult thing that anyone on either side has to do. Check-off facilitates and helps with that process, because it means that the employer knows exactly where a person works within the organisation, but that is not known if someone pays by direct debit. There is also, potentially, a data protection issue, because if someone pays their trade union membership by direct debit, that information is confidential and known only by the union member and the trade union, not the employer. Therefore, in an industrial action ballot, the crucial checks and balances for getting the lists correct will not be there. Everyone wants the lists to be correct, because if they are not, the matter will end up in court.

Tom Blenkinsop (Labour, Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland)

Apart from the fact that in certain sectors management would want to pay their trade union membership by direct debit, perhaps to keep it private and away from managerial colleagues, any employee with fewer than two years in post might not want to let their employer be aware of their trade union membership—depending on the relationship between the union or workforce and the employer—because of the employer’s history of behaviour towards unions. That would lead to problems for individuals seeking to exercise their right to be a union member. Furthermore, if someone had information about trade union members on direct debit, the potential for litigation in court over small anomalies being bounced back and forth between the employer and the trade union would be vast, and create even more expense for the employer and the union.

Julie Elliott (Labour, Sunderland Central)

I could not agree more. None of us ever wants to reach the point where an industrial action ballot has to take place, but if we do, the time spent on the accuracy of the lists, under the new conditions, will be an enormous task. If it is a national public sector dispute, there will be at least hundreds of thousands of people to deal with. It is not just 50 or 60 people, or a handful in either direction. We are talking about huge numbers, and if it is a national dispute, they will be working all over the country and in displaced workplaces.

Chris Stephens (Scottish National Party, Glasgow South West)

Does the hon. Lady believe, as I do, that part of the point of an implementing threshold is to stop national, or UK-wide, industrial action, by design, for many of the reasons she has mentioned?

Julie Elliott (Labour, Sunderland Central)

That might well be the motivation behind some of it. As I said in my opening remarks, the measure makes it almost impossible for certain types of dispute to take place.

If the trade union side has to spend so much extra time not only on getting the lists correct, but on making the turnout so high, that is time the officials are not spending on talking to the employer and trying to avert strike action, which has to be the motive of everyone involved in an industrial dispute. The only way to resolve a dispute, whether an industrial dispute or any other disagreement in life, is by talking to people. If there is no time to sit down and talk constructively, the problem escalates. That is common sense.

So much time will be spent on the accuracy of the lists, with all the problems that the later clauses of the Bill throw up, and then on getting the enormous turnout. The 50% threshold is a difficult one in itself, but adding on the 40% threshold is incredible, if not completely unrealistic, except in a specific workplace with everyone working for one employer, as the rail disputes in recent history have shown. In the broader public sector there is genuine doubt as to whether the 40% threshold is achievable. The evidence from Stephen Cavalier, from Thompsons Solicitors, is that it will probably lead to more industrial action. Professor Ewing says in paragraph 10 of his written evidence:

“The ILO Committee of Experts pointed out that ‘account should only be taken of the votes cast’, while any ‘required quorum and majority should be fixed at a reasonable level’.”

I defy anybody to say that some of the measures in the Bill around thresholds are reasonable.

Where will the Bill take us if it comes into law as it is written today? My view is that it will make positive industrial relations much more difficult. Because of that, it will inevitably lead to more strikes, which I do not believe is what any Member, on either side of the House, wants. It will most likely lead to the Government ending up in court, with a massive cost to the taxpayer. Nobody wants us to end up in that situation, so I urge the Government to look again at the two thresholds.

Lisa Cameron (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow)

Does the hon. Lady agree that the Bill will not only lead, in all likelihood, to increased cost, but to increased public disruption, given that it is likely to increase disharmony within the workplace and undermine partnership working?

Julie Elliott (Labour, Sunderland Central)

Absolutely, and that is a fundamental point. If the motivation behind the Bill is to try to limit industrial action, its net effect will be to make things worse.

Ian Mearns (Labour, Gateshead)

Building on my hon. Friend’s experience, industrial action is usually taken by members of trade unions when extreme frustration at a lack of progress in negotiations is being experienced. Therefore, given the levels of frustration that exist in these situations, would the imposition of thresholds enacted by this legislation make wildcat action more likely?

Julie Elliott (Labour, Sunderland Central)

That is highly possible: if people do not have an avenue to resolve their dispute with their employer—in an organised workplace with trade unions, that is usually through their trade union discussing the issue with the employer—that would be an inevitable consequence. None of us wants to see that kind of action. In the past 10 years or so, legislation in this area has led to very good industrial relations. I remember very personally and vividly, as the daughter of a miner living through the 1970s, how industrial relations used to be in this country. None of us wants to end up in that situation again. It was a dreadful time to live through. What we want is constructive, good relationships where industrial action ballots are an absolute last resort. The changes that the Bill proposes will make that impossible.

Tom Blenkinsop (Labour, Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland)

There is also a potential business cost. If we do not have collective bargaining, where one individual, on behalf of the company, talks to one individual, on behalf of the workforce, that will necessitate individual consultation. Depending on the size of the workplace, that could take a very long time and cost a lot of money.

Julie Elliott (Labour, Sunderland Central)

I totally agree, and these are issues we will explore later when we talk about practical implications of facility time. In conclusion, I urge the Government to look again at the thresholds and what I believe will be their impact—probably unforeseen by the Government—namely more industrial action and more disharmony in the workplace, and the potential legal consequences, with the Government having to spend a lot of taxpayers’ money defending challenges in the courts.

Chris Stephens (Scottish National Party, Glasgow South West)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I declare my membership of Glasgow City Unison and the fact that I was a Unison activist for 20 years prior to my election. Indeed, when I submitted my new application to join the branch again, it had created a House of Commons sub-branch, so that is a good tale to have.

I oppose the threshold for three main reasons. The first is the impact on equality issues, particularly gender equality. The Government have not addressed the difficulties of women workers being able to prosecute and to try to get an industrial dispute on such issues as shift changes, where they would be impacted far more than male workers. Amnesty, Liberty and other organisations made clear their concerns on those issues during the evidence sessions. The second reason is the issue of people not voting. I find it incredible that the deceased will be described as being people who are against industrial action. There are many reasons for people not voting, and that principle is wrong.

The third reason concerns the practicalities of what happens during a ballot process and afterwards leading to a dispute. The key test of whether there is a mandate for industrial action is how many trade union members participate in the industrial dispute. The trade union has arguments and has to make a calculation after a ballot result about whether that is support for industrial action. Where there has been a low turnout, some trade unions have not gone forward to industrial action because they did not believe that they had that support. That is the true test of whether there is support, and on that basis trade unions make a gamble as to whether they should go forward.

With low turnouts, the notion has been presented that trade union activists and officials, after the ballot result has been announced and they have been unable to persuade members to take industrial action, develop mystical powers to persuade trade union members to participate in industrial action. It is almost as if trade union officials adopt Jedi-like powers, where all they have to do is make one wave of a Jedi hand and say, “This is the industrial action you’re looking for.” Frankly, that is a fanciful notion, and on that basis we are opposed to the principles of thresholds.

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

At the opening of the debate and of the evidence sessions, every Opposition Member rightly and properly declared an interest as being a member of a trade union. In many cases, they have also declared an interest as being a former official of a trade union. They are proud of that, and they are right to be proud.

I do not have that privilege, but I have another privilege, which is to be a member of the general public. As members of the public, we rely on hospitals being open, because we do not get to go to another hospital under the NHS. We have to go to the one that has offered us the appointment. As members of the public, we rely on a particular school to take our children and educate them for the day, because we do not have the option to buy our way into another school within the public services. We have to send our children to the same school every day. As members of the public, we rely on particular forms of transport that are monopolies in people’s lives. We do not have the choice to choose other forms of transport very easily when a form of transport is closed due to a strike.

I can tell the Committee that all Government Members take our responsibilities as Members and representatives of the general public seriously indeed. All we are trying to do through the Bill is to think of their interests when strike action happens and to adjust slightly the balance of power between union members and members of the general public. Opposition Members are absolutely right to represent the unions that they have all either worked for or been members of for many, many years, but we on this side of the House are absolutely right to defend the interests of the members of the public who put us here and elected us to this House.

Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I have to say that it is a shame that the Minister is starting the debate by being somewhat disingenuous. Opposition Members also represent members of the public. In fact, the TUC made it clear in its evidence that it represents 6 million members of trade unions throughout this country who are also members of the general public and want their rights respected. Indeed, there are members of families who are not members of unions, but they also want their family members’ rights respected. Will the Minister not acknowledge that with one in 10 of the British population being members of trade unions, as the TUC has put it, the Bill has a significant impact on their rights and responsibilities and they are all members of the public too?

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

I am happy to accept that the one in 10 members of the public who are also members of trade unions must be represented properly in the House, and Opposition Members are doing an admirable job of representing them. I contend that the other nine out of 10 members of the public who are not members of unions and who are affected by strikes when they shut schools and hospitals and close down transport networks also deserve representation, and that is what we are providing.

Chris Stephens (Scottish National Party, Glasgow South West)

Will the Minister give way?

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

I will make a little progress, if I may, and I am sure that we will have an opportunity to hear from the hon. Gentleman soon.

The shadow Minister noted that there are many other things that cause more days to be lost than strike action. He mentioned, I believe, sickness, bad weather and breakdowns in machinery. I would bring forward tomorrow Bills in this House if I could abolish sickness, bad weather and breakdowns in machinery, but unfortunately we have to deal with the real world, and we are focusing on a minor adjustment to the balance—a slight rebalancing—on something that we can affect, which is the number of services shut by strikes.

Ian Mearns (Labour, Gateshead)

Will the Minister give way?

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

I will make a little progress and then I will be happy to take an intervention. All we are saying is that we want strike action to take place on the basis of a clear democratic mandate and not just because a very small minority of union members want it. Opposition Members have made great play of how strikes are always the last resort and no one ever wants strike action based on a tiny turnout. Indeed, we heard in last week’s evidence sessions from some very distinguished and eloquent leaders of major unions who made many of the same points.

I simply draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that in 2015—in this very year—London bus drivers, in a ballot organised by Unite, whose general secretary we heard from last week and who wrote in a letter to the Prime Minister that no one wants to see strike action on the basis of a very low turnout, nevertheless called a strike on the basis of 21% of the members of the union who were eligible to vote actually casting a vote and 18% to 19%, therefore, actually supporting the strike action. We also heard from Sir Paul Kenny of the GMB. In 2014, in a case involving local government workers, 23% turned out to support strike action over pay. We heard also from the general secretary of Unison. In 2014, there was a strike over the pay of NHS workers, and 16% of the members of Unison entitled to vote in the ballot had turned out. The idea that we are somehow tackling a problem that does not exist is shown to be entirely spurious by those figures.

Chris Stephens (Scottish National Party, Glasgow South West)

There are a couple of tests in terms of the Minister’s arguments. First, did any of those employers take the union to court? That is a genuine question. And surely if the trade union was not confident that its members would participate in the industrial action, it would not have called it, because trade unions cannot discipline a trade union member who does not participate in industrial action.

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

The unions may have been confident, but their confidence was surely misplaced, given that in these cases the figures ranged from 16% to 21% for the people who actually bothered to vote, and that includes the people who voted against the proposed action. This is a problem and it affects members of the public.

Jo Stevens (Labour, Cardiff Central)

Will the Minister give way?

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

I will, I promise, take a whole range of interventions, but I just want a little time to make an argument in response to the eloquent arguments that we have heard from the hon. Lady and others.

There was a lot of discussion, quite rightly and properly, about the claim that we make that the indirect consequences, the indirect impact, of strikes can outweigh the direct consequences. There was some criticism—not entirely unjustified, in my view—from Opposition Members that no statistics are available to measure those indirect impacts. I hope that Opposition Members will be pleased to learn that I have therefore written to Andrew Dilnot, who runs the ONS, requesting that the ONS look into how it can capture the indirect impacts of strikes.

The shadow Minister makes great play of the fact that the number of working days lost directly due to strike action is relatively low by historical standards. Although he picks a period that particularly flatters the figures, I nevertheless accept the broad point, which is that the number of days lost directly to industrial action is relatively low, compared with some of the dark days of the past.

I would like quickly to talk the Committee through a strike that actually happened, and how we might begin to start estimating its indirect impacts. In July 2014, the National Union of Teachers called a strike that caused 20% of schools to close for the day. This is all very vague, and I am going to make no absolute claims about specific numbers of days lost, but I am going to talk the Committee through how one might get a feel for the rough size and scale of the impact of such a strike. Using a rough average of 382 pupils per school, another strike of that magnitude that closed 20% of schools could close 4,029 schools, affecting 1.54 million pupils in England. According to Office for National Statistics data, there are 4.12 million working households in the UK with dependent children. Based on a school closure rate of 20%, that means that roughly 820,000 working households would be impacted by a strike that closed a school in which one of their children was expecting to spend the day.

The ONS says that 3.2 million of those households are two-parent working households, in which both parents work. A further 851,000 lone parents are also in work. I am not going to try to guess how many of those working single parents and double-parent families where both parents work actually had to take a day off work unexpectedly to look after their children when they could not go to school, because of course many of them may have been able to call a grandparent or make emergency childcare arrangements.

Julie Elliott (Labour, Sunderland Central)

Will the Minister give way?

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

I will not give way.

I am absolutely going to assert that millions of parents had to take a really difficult decision that had a great impact. Either one of them had to take a day off work, which they did not expect and so could not give their employer much notice, or they had to spend a great deal of money on emergency childcare, or they had to inconvenience another member of their family to provide childcare cover. So do not come to me—I know you would not, Sir Edward; I say this to the shadow Minister—bandying about your very low figures for the number of days lost directly to industrial action when 1 million parents in that strike that closed 20% of the nation’s schools had either to take a day off work or spend a great deal of money that they would rather not have spent on emergency childcare.

Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I have no reason to doubt the disruption that is caused by any individual strike. We are all clear that we want to avoid that. My mother was a teacher, and I have friends with kids. It causes disruption for lots of people. My mother was a member of the NUT, in fact, and she took any suggestion of industrial action or strike action very seriously. She was hardly a militant, and she would not have wanted to do that. However, I think the Minister needs to put those statistics in context. Given that he has done that extensive analysis, perhaps he or his officials can estimate the number of days lost to a child’s education over the course of their school career—perhaps just their primary school career. It will be a very small number.

In that example—I do not know to which strike the Minister was referring—the union may have had extremely good reasons to go on strike. They do not want to, and we all recognise that it has an impact, but it must be seen in a wider context. It is not enough to justify the measures in the Bill.

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

I want to move on to the amendments. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will remember that the strike I was talking about, which happened last year, was supported by 22% of NUT members. I am sure it was very important for those 22%, but it was not particularly important—not sufficient for them to fill out a ballot paper and put it in the post—for the other 78%, so let us get this in perspective. It was clearly of rather more importance to the millions of parents who were affected than it was to the 78% who had the right to vote but did not.

I will now turn to the amendments unless hon. Members want to intervene.

Julie Elliott (Labour, Sunderland Central)

I thank the Minister for giving way. I want to ask one simple question. Does the Minister regard children going to school as childcare?

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

I am glad to say that it is a great deal more than that, but when a school is closed because of a strike supported by 22% of union members then, unfortunately, childcare is what parents have to be able to deliver.

Jo Stevens (Labour, Cardiff Central)

My point is on the earlier remark about making slight tweaks to the current law. The Minister proposes to introduce a new concept in the Bill, which is to count abstentions as no votes. How can that be described as tweaking the current law?

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

I do not accept the caricature. All we are saying is that, when action is proposed that will have a great effect on people—citizens and equal members of the public who have no vote at all in this ballot and who are not even consulted—it is not unreasonable to require a level of participation that is more than half. That will not stop most strikes, as we have seen from the figures, but it will reassure members of the public that strikes are happening only when they have sufficient support. The British people are fair. They believe in people having the right to strike and would always want to retain that possibility for themselves, but they feel that it is unfair when it happens, as that NUT strike or those other strikes that I listed did, on a very low turnout.

John Howell (Conservative, Henley)

I was looking at the evidence from John Cridland from the CBI. He sums up what the Minister is trying to say very well. He said:

“I think it is reasonable, given the level of disruption involved, that there is clear evidence of a significant mandate.”––[Official Report, Trade Union Public Bill Committee, 13 October 2015; c. 8, Q6.]

That is all we are asking for.

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is important to have been reminded of John Cridland’s evidence. The hon. Member for Sunderland Central made the claim that the vast majority of businesses do not support these measures. The CBI unequivocally represents more businesses than any other business organisation—that is a matter of fact—and Mr Cridland was very clear that it is not just supporting the Bill but has supported this policy for five years and has only just persuaded a Conservative Government to adopt it. So that was not an entirely accurate characterisation of the position.

Ian Mearns (Labour, Gateshead)

I wonder whether the Minister might reflect for a moment or two on whether enacting this Bill will mean that those members—he talked about the 78% of union members in a particular ballot not voting—have an understanding that an abstention will count as a no vote. That might be the trigger that he does not want, for them to get out and vote in a ballot.

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

One of the problems that we have in this discussion—I am sure it is a failure on my part—is that Opposition Members do not seem to understand that we are not trying to stop strikes. We are trying to stop strikes that have very low levels of support. If unions are, as a result of this legislation, enabled to ensure that every single strike ballot sails over the new thresholds, the Bill will have been successful, not least because the British public will have the confidence that the issue at stake is so important that it justifies that action.

Chris Stephens (Scottish National Party, Glasgow South West)

I have a similar point to that made by the hon. Member for Gateshead. The Minister mentioned that a 22% ballot closed all those schools. If it was able to close all those schools, it would suggest that the support for the industrial action was more than 22%. Surely this is about participation and helping trade union members participate in a ballot? Will the Minister look seriously at those issues?

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

We are looking quite seriously at those issues, which is why we have introduced the legislation. Given the hon. Gentleman’s express desire to tackle those issues, I hope I can persuade him to support at least some of our measures.

On the detail of amendments 2, 7, 20 and 21, I appreciate the desire to have clarity and certainty about who is entitled to vote, but that is already well established as a result of the operation of existing provisions of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and of case law, which provide a balance in the system by protecting trade unions against challenge over insignificant breaches of the balloting rules. For example, many of the provisions in the legislation on balloting are already subject to a reasonableness requirement. Section 227 of the aforementioned Act confers the entitlement to vote to

“all the members of the trade union who it is reasonable at the time of the ballot for the union to believe will be induced”

to strike.

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.”

In addition, section 232B provides that a union still complies with the requirements on balloting even if it has made an error in the process, so long as the failure or failures are

“accidental and on a scale which is unlikely to affect the result of the ballot”.

That was tested recently in court—the margin of error was considered in the case of RMT v. Serco Ltd. As a result, the obligations to give accurate notices and to ballot accurately are already governed by what is reasonably practicable in the light of the information in the possession of the union. The obligations are not intended to be unduly onerous for the unions to comply with. There is no obligation on the union to prepare or update records specifically for industrial action ballots. Plus, as I have explained, unions are already well used to assessing what is reasonably practicable, given that that is an established concept in the 1992 Act. Of course, we are introducing reforms to ensure that unions have up-to-date records of their membership anyway, which I will come to shortly.

Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I thank the Minister for his assurances about the existing case law and previous legislation. Given that he is in the mood for tweaking, would he go back and look at those issues? We have been very clear that we oppose the legislation but, if the Minister is going to proceed, would he look at clarifying beyond doubt in the Bill that those little problems cannot be used by people who might seek to be vexatious in frustrating unions that are reasonably trying to comply with it?

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

I am always happy to look and reassure myself, but I am pretty confident that that is the case. The amendments proposed by the Opposition go further. They would allow the union to import a reasonable belief into a trade dispute. That is in stark contrast to the current position, where there is an objective test to determine whether a matter constitutes a trade dispute or not. That is important because it is the basis from which flows the legal protections for unions and for strike action that is taking place properly. It would allow the issue to be open to a degree of uncertainty, according to what the union believed. That would be detrimental to employers and would tip the balance too far in favour of trade unions. The current wording allows clarity for both parties.

Other changes that the Government are making to the regulation of trade unions will simply make amendments 1, 8 and 22 unnecessary. The coalition Government introduced a new requirement for unions to submit membership audit certificates to show that they are complying with their duty to keep membership records accurate and up to date. The changes are designed to ensure that unions know who their members are, enabling them to be democratically accountable and to reflect the will of their members. The first membership audit certificates are due in June 2016. The fact that unions will therefore have more reliable membership records means that they will in future have more confidence that those who are entitled to vote receive the ballot paper. I am therefore not convinced that unions need leeway to allow certain members to be left out of the number of those who count towards the thresholds. Of course, that same point applies to amendments 20 and 21.

Tom Blenkinsop (Labour, Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland)

Is an industrial ballot conducted among members or among employees?

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

Obviously, the people who are eligible to vote have to be members of the union. They are also employees of the unit where the ballot is being held. Their entitlement to vote is based on being members of the union.

Tom Blenkinsop (Labour, Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland)

The two are different, because the employees list could include people of other unions or none.

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

I did not entirely catch what the hon. Gentleman just said. Perhaps he would repeat it.

Tom Blenkinsop (Labour, Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland)

One list is the list of members set by the union. The other is a list of employees, which can include members of another union or of none. That is the proper list for an industrial ballot, not the members’ list by the union.

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

I am not sure that I entirely understand the distinction that the hon. Gentleman is trying to draw. To be eligible to vote, someone obviously has to be both.

Tom Blenkinsop (Labour, Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland)

No.

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

To be able to call for strike action, people have to be both an employee of the unit where there is a dispute and a member of the union that is calling the ballot.

Tom Blenkinsop (Labour, Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland)

No. The Minister is obviously unaware of the law.

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

I am sorry not to have satisfied the hon. Gentleman.

James Cartlidge (Conservative, South Suffolk)

May I reassure my hon. Friend the Minister? In the light of the evidence sessions and the correspondence I have received from my constituents, although there are a huge number of technical details, the overwhelmingly important point is the one he has made: we support the thresholds in our key public services so that disruption is not brought to our constituents on such a wide scale as we have seen resulting from school closures and so on.

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is always good to be reminded of whom we are sent here to represent. Sometimes, I get the sense that Members think they are representing other people.

Perhaps I can help the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland by describing as well as I can who is entitled to vote in a ballot:

“Entitlement to vote in the ballot must be accorded equally to all the members of the trade union who it is reasonable at the time of the ballot for the union to believe will be induced by the union to take part or, as the case may be, to continue to take part in the industrial action in question, and to no others.”

That is my understanding of the law. I have no doubt that he will want to draw my attention to where he disagrees with the law, but I believe that that is what it says in section 227(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

Tom Blenkinsop (Labour, Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland)

I do not want to instruct the Minister in actual law, but as someone who has actually conducted a ballot, in terms of practice, a business unit and the employees within in it—[Hon. Members: “That is not the law.”] Well, it is the law. It is the same thing—it is a business practice that is conducted under the law and it means that employees on site are all part of the industrial ballot, whether members of the recognised union, another union or not a member of a union at all. We are talking about a business unit. That is the law.

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

One of the beauties of British democracy is that we Members are not sent to Parliament to control the practice out there in the real world. We are sent here to pass laws and regulations. If the hon. Gentleman wants to confess that he has been party to practice that was not in accordance with the law, I am certainly not going to report him for it, but it seems to me that he is suggesting that there is a difference between workplace practice and the current law.

Tom Blenkinsop (Labour, Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland)

On a point of order, Sir Edward. I do not know where the Minister is going with this, trying to infer things or besmirch my reputation when I was simply pointing out what the law and business practice is. We are only two hours into line-by-line consideration of the Bill. I do not think this is a very good start, Sir Edward.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I am not sure that that was a point of order, but the hon. Gentleman made his point.

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

I am sorry, Sir Edward. I did mean that as a light jest. From the look in the hon. Gentleman’s eyes, I think he knows that. I should probably plough on.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

Order. The Minister is not supposed to talk about Members’ eyes; it is what they say that is important.

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

Fair enough, Sir Edward.

The fact that the unions will have more reliable membership records means that, in future, they will have more confidence that those who are entitled to vote do indeed receive a postal ballot paper. That is why I am not convinced that unions need leeway to allow certain members to be left out of the number who count towards the thresholds. As I have said, that point applies to amendments 20 and 21 as well.

Finally, on amendment 23, it is not enough simply to have the 50% and 40% thresholds in place. We must also ensure that union members and the employer have information about whether all the conditions that relate to the ballot mandate have been met, because it is not just the union leaders who need to know whether the ballot has secured a valid mandate. Members and employers ought to know whether any subsequent industrial action is valid and legally secure. Information about whether the threshold or, if appropriate, thresholds are met is a crucial part of that. It adds transparency and clarity to the process.

Of course, we could leave unions, members and employers to work it out for themselves from information that they are already entitled to receive—under section 231 of the 1992 Act—about the number of votes cast and the number of individuals answering either yes or no, but that would not be fair. The union will have calculated the result in order to know itself whether it has secured a mandate, so why not simply pass on that information to those who are directly affected by the mandate? On that basis, I urge the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth to withdraw amendment 1.

Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I do not wish to withdraw the amendment. I will briefly comment on a few of the points that the Committee has made on this group. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central raised some important points about the turnout thresholds for police and crime commissioners, which gave us a very strong context for the absurdity of the Government proposals and their position. The Government have been involved in plenty of other ballots, not least the election of many Conservative Members—I accept that this is also true of Opposition Members—where those thresholds would not have been met.

I also refer to the point made on the impact of abstentions, which we will emphasise at numerous points in the Bill. The Government are supposedly serious about increasing turnout, but there is nothing in the Bill to increase participation. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central made some important points about the potential to undermine partnership working in seeking a resolution to disputes, and spoke of the practical experience that she and others have had. She described a ballot as the most intensive thing that unions and employers go through and spoke of the challenge of getting lists right.

The hon. Member for Glasgow South West aptly pointed out the equality impacts and trade union self-regulation on whether to take action.

James Cartlidge (Conservative, South Suffolk)

The point of equality impacts has been raised many times. Obviously, the threshold makes no specific statement in any sense on that, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that, going back to the Minister’s point about school closures and the impact of major strikes, women are among the most disproportionately affected, particularly mothers with children at school?

Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I have no doubt that women are affected by strike action. Nobody on the Opposition side of the Committee is attempting to deny that. We are making a point about the impact of the Bill as a whole and its disproportionate impact in every strike ballot that is going to be undertaken under the new rules.

Ian Mearns (Labour, Gateshead)

Do fathers take children to school?

Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

Yes, fathers do take children to school, but we are concerned particularly about the impact of the Bill on women trade unionists, which many witnesses have made clear. As I have said, trade union members represent one tenth of the UK population. I will come back to the Minister’s comment on that in a moment.

The hon. Member for Glasgow South West made the point that trade unions will only in very rare circumstances proceed with industrial action if they are not going to be able to get their members to take part. That should be the real test of whether or not there is consent in the broader sense. I liked the hon. Member’s reference to apparently Jedi-like powers to induce members into industrial action. All I can say is that this is not the Bill Ministers are looking for.

The Minister made some very false divisions. I intervened when he made the point that Opposition Members are somehow standing up for militant trade unionists and Government Members are standing up for ordinary members of the public. What absolute nonsense! The idea that there is such a division is simply not the case. Every one of those 6 million trade union members is a member of a family who care about their conditions—whether health and safety, pay, pensions, or working arrangements. I believe they have deep concern about many of the actions that the Government are taking to undermine workers, particularly in the public sector.

Jo Stevens (Labour, Cardiff Central)

Would it not be right to say that many public sector unions have taken industrial action in order to protect the very public services that Conservative Members say are affected by the disruption?

Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I am sure that, without the Bill, we would get into a wider debate about the Government’s attitude towards public services and their funding. The Minister talks about the Bill being a minor adjustment. That is simply not the case. It is the most dramatic change to trade union legislation in a generation. That is the considered view of many of the legal experts and others who have examined it. It is not “tweaking” to change the rules on abstention, potentially in breach of international conventions. It is very significant. The way that the Government and the Minister have been dressing this up as a tiny movement here and there to bring things in line is disingenuous.

Ian Mearns (Labour, Gateshead)

We are getting to the nub of the problem the Bill is trying to sort out. Government Members have repeatedly talked about the disruption caused by industrial action in schools, but thankfully in this country industrial actions in schools are few and far between. To put it in context, according to the ONS, the problem the Bill is trying to sort out—industrial action in this country—added up to just 0.00005% of all days worked. We are sitting in this room trying to sort out that problem.

Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

My hon. Friend makes a very clear point about the problem the Bill seeks to solve. We have heard that again and again. I am pleased that the Minister said he will ask the ONS to look at the issue of indirect impact. It will be helpful for the House to have that information. I suspect it will confirm many of the views that have been expressed by Opposition Members and many of the witnesses. It is disappointing that some witnesses, including the CBI and others, made grand statements about the need for the Bill without being able to justify it. Even without ONS statistics, there are other ways of making the case clearer, but they have been unable to do it.

Julie Elliott (Labour, Sunderland Central)

On whether bits of the Bill are legal and whether they will end up in the courts, the evidence presented last week by legal experts Stephen Cavalier and Professor Keith Ewing confirmed that the measure would end up in the courts. Does my hon. Friend agree?

Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I certainly do. I am not a lawyer and I do not have experience of testing such things in the courts, but a significant amount of legal opinion suggests that the Bill is potentially in breach of a series of international conventions, let alone the devolution settlement and existing domestic legislation, and it questions whether many aspects of the Bill are enforceable in the courts.

Going back to the necessity of the measures in the Bill, the Minister has said that he accepts that there are historically low levels of industrial action in this country, and yet the Government have repeatedly extrapolated a sledgehammer from a limited number of examples. We can debate at length the rights or wrongs of any individual strike or industrial action, but we are making legislation for the whole country, all forms of industrial action and all trade union members. The legislation will affect every single trade union member in this country and every single dispute. It simply cannot be right to extrapolate and make general points on the basis of a few examples that the Government have used to back up their case.

Lisa Cameron (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the public are unlikely to look on the Bill favourably, given the potential legal challenges and the impact on the public purse?

Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

One interesting aspect is that the public are not aware of the likely impact on the public purse of legal challenges arising from the Bill. We can look at a number of examples. For example, the Government tried to take the Welsh Government to court over changes to the Agricultural Wages Board, which has a lot of similarities to aspects of the Bill. It resulted in an extremely expensive legal case, which went all the way to the Supreme Court. If the public were aware of the likely challenges and costs arising from the Bill, they would take a very dim view.

Let me turn briefly to what the Minister said about Opposition amendments. I appreciate his clarifying that unions are protected under section 227 of the 1992 Act. He said that they are protected under reasonableness measures in existing case law. If the Government intend to proceed with this legislation, I urge him to look carefully to ensure that those protections actually exist. I will describe more such protections when we discuss the next amendment.

I have less confidence in what the Minister said in opposing amendments 1 and 7, so I will press them to Divisions and test the will of the Committee at the appropriate point. It would be helpful, given the nature of the debate between the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, if the Minister could clarify his position on my hon. Friend’s point in writing to the Committee. It is important that the Committee is in possession of the full facts on the nature of how disputes are played out and how balloting takes place in the workplace. I re-emphasise the concerns that we and the vast majority of people who gave evidence have about clause 2 and its many implications.

Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 2, page 1, line 14, at end insert—

‘(3) Small or accidental failures in the arrangements for carrying out the ballot which do not affect the result of the ballot are disregarded for the purposes of compliance with section 226.’

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 13, in clause 3, page 2, line 24, and insert?

‘(3ZA) Small or accidental failures in the arrangements for carrying out the ballot which do not affect the result of the ballot are disregarded for the purposes of compliance this section.’

Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I do not intend to detain the Committee for long on these two amendments, which are designed to be probing and to highlight the difficulties that unions may face when seeking to comply with the proposed threshold rules. The amendments relate to some of the points we have been discussing about the potential for vexatious legal challenges on the conduct of ballots that I believe, given the history of industrial relations in this country, some employers may choose to make.

I have already outlined why we have serious concerns that the Bill is attempting to put as many barriers as possible in the way of people exercising their democratic rights. It is worth looking at what Sara Ogilvie of Liberty said in the evidence sessions. She summarised her concerns by saying that:

“My concern is that the proposals in the Bill would absolutely render the right”—

of industrial action—

“illusory, largely by creating a system of bureaucracy and hurdles that people have to overcome.”––[Official Report, Trade Union Public Bill Committee, 13 October 2015; c. 60, Q158.]

That concern clearly applies to the matters we have just discussed, but I want to flag up a further, related concern.

The Bill does not provide trade unions with any defence if they make a minor technical mistake when sending out ballot papers, even when they have made genuine efforts to comply with any new requirements. Trade unions are currently protected from small accidental failures when identifying who should be balloted and when sending out ballot papers. Mistakes that would not affect the outcome of the ballot should be disregarded.

The amendments would extend the small accidental failures defence to the new 50% and 40% turnout requirements. If the Minister believes that trade unions are already protected in that regard, as he has said, will he explain why? Will he reassure those who are deeply worried that the proposal will be yet another tool in the hands of those who would attempt, in a vexatious manner, to frustrate the legitimate expression of trade unions’ rights, such as by complaint to the certification officer through the proposed new powers or by recourse to the courts? What are his views on that?

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments on the amendment. In matters as serious as workplace disputes and industrial action, it is of course right that trade unions must undertake a number of procedures when running a strike ballot. The rules are there to ensure consistency and fairness in how the ballot is organised. They are not in place to trip up unions, but are there to protect the interests of workers, employers and the unions themselves.

Inconsequential errors of process that have no material impact are not what the balloting rules are designed to address. That is reflected in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and in case law, which together already protect trade unions against challenge over insignificant breaches of the balloting rules. For example, section 232B of the 1992 Act provides that a union still complies with the requirements on balloting even if it has made some error in the process, so long as the failure or failures are accidental and on a scale that is unlikely to affect the result of the ballot. As I mentioned previously, in the case of RMT v. Serco the Court of Appeal held that although the exception in 232B does not apply to all parts of the 1992 Act, that does not prevent a union from claiming immunity when there is an insignificant breach or a trifling error in relation to the rules, even when there is no explicit statutory defence. That case also made clear how far unions must go to ensure the accuracy of the figures given in ballot and strike notifications, and the explanation they must give as to how the figures have been reached. Specifically, it established that there is no obligation for a union to obtain further information or to set up systems to improve its record keeping.

The law, therefore, already delivers the assurance that the hon. Gentleman seeks, and I ask him to withdraw the amendment.

Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I thank the Minister for his comments. The points that have been made are important, because with any legislation it is not beyond the ken of those who would wish to frustrate the exercise of democratic rights to attempt to use the law in a way that would at least bog down disputes in lengthy litigation. I appreciate the Minister’s reading his comments into the record, and I certainly hope that they will be considered if the Bill proceeds in its current form. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Chris Stephens (Scottish National Party, Glasgow South West)

I beg to move amendment 90, in clause 2, page 1, line 14, at end insert—

‘(3) This section shall not apply to trade disputes in Scotland.’

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 11, in clause 3, page 2, line 24, at end insert—

‘(2G) None of the provisions of this section shall apply to services the provision of which is devolved wholly or partially to the Scottish Government, Welsh Government or Northern Ireland Executive.’

Chris Stephens (Scottish National Party, Glasgow South West)

This group of amendments could be called the devolved group. It goes to the heart of principles regarding mandates—not just the mandates that trade unions derive with regard to taking industrial action, but whether there is a mandate across the nations of the UK for the Bill and for specific clauses within it. That is natural, when we have four nations in the UK with a different leading party in each.

The amendments also raise issues of consent. The devolved Administrations and local authorities are being dictated to by the Bill regarding how they conduct their industrial relations. There are issues regarding the effect on the spirit of friendship and solidarity across the UK, and regarding our mandate, which is to seek the devolution of employment law in the Scotland Bill. It is important to point out that Parliament has yet to put to the test whether employment law should be devolved to Scotland.

The constitutional issues that arise from the Bill could have serious consequences. We were told by Ministers in the evidence sessions that industrial relations are reserved, but in reality they are not. The reality is that devolved Administrations in the past have kept the two-tier workforce agreements, which the coalition Government removed for workers in the public sector in England.

Edward Argar (Conservative, Charnwood)

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept, though, as the Scottish Cabinet Secretary Ms Cunningham did, that industrial relations are currently reserved?

Chris Stephens (Scottish National Party, Glasgow South West)

Ms Cunningham then went on to make the position clear about the impact that would have. The hon. Gentleman is correct that industrial relations are reserved at this point, but an electoral mandate was given to 56 MPs who were elected in May—I could argue that there are 58 MPs in Scotland who are opposed to the Bill. The Bill is a real concern, because it ignores, for example, the work of the Scottish Government in setting up the Scottish fair work convention. They are working in partnership with trade unions rather than seeing them as the enemy of the public and using the kind of rhetoric we have heard while discussing the Bill.

The Bill brings into question the impact of the industrial relations capacity. We have heard from the local authorities in Scotland. Conservative councillor Billy Hendry said in a Convention of Scottish Local Authorities statement that COSLA is opposed to the Bill. The Bill seeks to dictate to the devolved Administrations on issues of facility time and check-off. There seems little support in Scotland and Wales or in aspects of the public sector in England for the removal of check-off. Check-off is a voluntary arrangement, and for the UK Government to dictate to parts of the public sector who have an electoral mandate to conduct industrial relations is wrong. It will be interesting to hear from the Minister whether he has responded to the Scottish or Welsh Governments on the principles of consent.

More importantly, the deputy General Secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress at our political conference in Aberdeen at the weekend, at a fringe meeting, described the principles around facility time and check-off to be the most pernicious parts of the Bill, simply because it strikes at the heart of trade union organisation. Employers benefit from employees having good facility time. They know who they are; they are people who can deal with people and sort issues out; it leads to fewer tribunal claims, less litigation, better health and safety and, indeed it can lead to lifelong learning for employees as well. Those are the very real benefits of facility time.

There was no consultation with the public sector, this provision interferes with electoral and political mandates, and I believe that there is a lack of consent for the Bill across many parts of the UK.

Lisa Cameron (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow)

Does my hon. Friend agree that Scotland and the Scottish Government have had harmonious working relationships with management and unions, in terms of partnership, and that there is great concern, from constituents and from the Scottish Government, the councils and the Scottish Trades Union Congress, about the Bill’s potential to undermine this?

Chris Stephens (Scottish National Party, Glasgow South West)

Absolutely. The current figures show that there is less industrial action in Scotland than in the rest of the UK. That suggests that partnership working is successful and leads to less industrial action and better working relationships across the board. We know that many public bodies oppose the Bill. Some public bodies have gone even further and said that they will defy the Bill. This can only lead to conflict with other public bodies, conflict across the public sector, and it could lead, as Professor Keith Ewing suggested, to a constitutional crisis across the UK. It is rather ironic that this is coming from the UK Government, when they usually point the finger at other people for causing constitutional crises across the UK.

The trade union movement is the largest group in civil society and we should be working in partnership. I look forward to the debate and will indicate in my summing-up whether we wish to push any amendments to a vote.

Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

It is a pleasure to move on to one of the most significant parts of the Bill in relation to its potential legality, let alone its potential for implementation.

I wish to speak to our amendments 11, 12, 42, 72, 51 and 73, but I shall respond first to the speech by the hon. the Member for Glasgow South West, many aspects of which I have a great degree of sympathy with. I entirely understand his concerns about the impact of the Bill on Scotland, particularly in areas that are clearly devolved. Let me be clear at the outset that, in line with the principles of togetherness and solidarity that underpin the trade union movement, we intend to oppose and to attempt to defeat every substantive clause of the Bill in order to stand up for workers in every part of the United Kingdom, including Scotland. Our amendments also highlight specific areas that we believe most clearly breach the existing devolution settlement, in line with the evidence provided to us by the Welsh and Scottish Governments and other concerned stakeholders.

Other amendments in this group that we have tabled are an attempt to expose the contradictions of a Government who repeatedly claim that they are a champion of regional devolution in England, yet seek to undermine the rights of English local authorities’ mayors and, given the new devolved powers that the Government have been talking about, authorities’ own industrial relations and contractual arrangements. That is particularly important in the light of the significant changes to regional devolution in England that the Government are moving ahead with. They are essentially devolving powers to mayors and regional councils across England on the one hand and then clipping their wings with the other. The Tory Government are adopting a divide and rule approach to trade union legislation and workers’ rights across the United Kingdom.

I want to turn to the stark comments made by Profession Keith Ewing in the oral evidence session. He was referring to the impact on Scotland, but he said:

“The problem will be if a Scottish public body decides, ‘We are not going to comply with this ban on the check-off,’ or ‘We are not going to publish the facility time arrangements that we give to trade union representatives.’ What will happen at that point? We are looking at the question of who will enforce those obligations against Scottish public bodies.”

That could be applied to Welsh or English public bodies and local authorities. He continued:

“Are we really saying that the Secretary of State for Scotland will bring a case against a major Scottish public authority to enforce those obligations? The Government are walking, almost blindfolded, into a major constitutional crisis around the Bill.”––[Official Report, Trade Union Public Bill Committee, 15 October 2015; c. 129, Q346.]

Based on the Government’s record, we know that they might be inspired to launch legal actions against Scottish public bodies, as they have tried to do on various occasions against the Welsh Government over decisions they have made. Of course, as the record will show, the Government have been found to be on the wrong side, as decided by the Supreme Court, and the case has been found against them at great cost to the taxpayer.

We also need to look closely at the comments made by the Minister for Public Services in Wales, Leighton Andrews, who is clear both about the lack of consultation on the provisions that have an impact on the devolved settlement, and about their potential impact. He said:

“We have good relationships with the trade unions. We value our workforce and believe that they contribute proactively to the development of strong public services.”

He also said:

“The First Minister’s letter to the Prime Minister also raised a fundamental constitutional issue in respect of our right to defend legitimate devolved interests. He said in that letter that we have great concerns that the nature of the Bill would cut across the devolution settlement, which is of great concern to us. We recently received a short reply from the Prime Minister, but we do not regard it as dealing with the key issues that we set out.”––[Official Report, Trade Union Public Bill Committee, 13 October 2015; c. 79, Q219.]

He went on:

“We also find it somewhat odd that a UK Government Bill of this kind seeks to specify, for example, how much union facility time employees have saved local authorities in Wales.”––[Official Report, Trade Union Public Bill Committee, 13 October 2015; c. 79-80, Q221.]

As he pointed out, Wales been going through a local government reform programme. Clearly, as part of that negotiation and debate, on which there are many views in Wales, there needs to be discussion of the wider contractual arrangements with local authorities and their powers and relationships. The Bill cuts across a sensitive and important set of discussions on local government reform in Wales.

The Scottish Government have also laid out their concerns. Roseanna Cunningham, the Minister, said:

“I am not aware of there being any formal consultation in advance of the introduction of the Bill. While I have had some correspondence backwards and forwards with the relevant Minister, there has not really been much in the way of a discussion and we are still trying to establish exactly how it would impact on us. We share a lot of the concerns that the Welsh Minister expressed to you.”––[Official Report, Trade Union Public Bill Committee, 13 October 2015; c. 82, Q227.]

I am surprised—this has been revealed at many stages of the Bill, including on Second Reading—that on such a matter of potential clash with the devolution settlement, and particularly in the light of the Government’s agenda on local government devolution in England, there has not been the level of consultation that one would expect on these issues.

Ian Mearns (Labour, Gateshead)

Hon. Members will be aware that in the north of England the Government are seeking to establish elected mayors covering regions or sub-regions, and great cities and local enterprise partnership areas in places such as the north-east of England. Does my hon. Friend see the capacity for additional conflict if elected mayors are established and then instructed by Her Majesty’s Government about how they should conduct industrial relations affairs within their own elected area?

Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I agree with my hon. Friend. Not only does that apply to such relationships going forward, but we need to look at the impact of the Bill retrospectively. I would appreciate clarification from the Minister on that. Obviously, local and devolved government across the UK already has extensive contractual arrangements on matters such as check-off, facility time and so on. That is particularly true in the public sector, but also in relation to bodies that receive public funding. Those things are woven into the fabric of employment contracts up and down the land. The Bill simply drives a coach and horses through that and could result in a serious number of legal challenges.

Chris Stephens (Scottish National Party, Glasgow South West)

On the point raised by the hon. Member for Gateshead, if an elected mayor, a local authority political party, or even a devolved Administration political party puts in its manifesto that it wants to deal with workers by having good facility time and check-off, surely that mandate should stand and should not be interfered with.

Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Who should have the power in that situation to determine the type of partnerships and arrangements that exist? Should it be for the UK Government, who claim they are pro-devolution, to interfere in those relationships and negotiations?

The implications are clear. I refer to the position that many Scottish local authorities and Scottish Labour party have taken regarding the Bill, which is essentially a position of non-compliance, particularly with the measures abolishing check-off and curbing facility time. To date, every single Labour-led administration in Scotland has passed motions to that effect. They are giving a clear signal of intent regarding the potential constitutional clash we are heading towards.

James Cartlidge (Conservative, South Suffolk)

I am very interested in amendment 12, which states:

“None of the provisions of this section shall apply to services provided by the Mayor of London”.

In other words, thresholds would not apply in London. In the city where we have had the greatest problems with tube and bus strikes with low turnouts, on which we have had a huge amount of evidence, is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that we should leave London out of the thresholds?

Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

The point we are making with the amendments is that it should be for devolved Governments, and the Mayor of London, to determine the type of relationships they want to have. If the hon. Gentleman wants to get into a debate about the Mayor of London’s relationship with the trade unions, I think he is heading on to a sticky wicket. We heard nonsense from the Mayor of London on Second Reading. That goes back to a fundamental point: we are constantly looking at the impact of strikes rather than the reason for them. It is as though they were all dreamed up by a bunch of militants without cause. That is simply not the case. I suggest we do not go down the line of debating the Mayor of London’s industrial relations.

Going back to Scotland, Scottish local government is making it clear that it will not implement the Bill. If that is the case, as also appears to be the suggestion of the Welsh Government and other public bodies across the UK, we are heading into difficult territory.

The Labour party believes that a collective response and approach to this divisive legislation is both the most ethical and efficacious way to proceed, in the best traditions of trade unionism. Although I understand the principles underpinning many of the SNP amendments in this group that are intended to exempt to Scotland alone from particular clauses, our position is clear. We want to exempt all of the United Kingdom, including Scotland, from all the clauses of the Bill. We intend to do so by voting against each clause of the Bill, and I hope the SNP will continue in the vein already established in Committee and join us in doing so in the principle of solidarity.

There is much that the hon. Member for Glasgow South West and I agree on. However, although I understand the intent behind the SNP amendments, there is a risk that amendments that seek to defend the rights of workers in only part of the UK will play into the Government’s hands and encourage a race to the bottom. I hope the SNP will continue its support in defeating each clause of the Bill and join us in voting against the Bill, should it proceed, on Third Reading.

The SNP has tabled amendments 84 and 85, which relate to consent to legislate on a range of issues across the UK. We believe that devolved nations should be exempted, as per our amendments. Nevertheless, there is no inconsistency in supporting those SNP amendments. We would also look favourably on a number of other amendments the SNP has tabled to later parts of the Bill.

I turn to amendment 11 to clause 3. Setting balloting thresholds for the range of important services outlined in the Bill will clearly have a direct impact on public policy areas that are wholly devolved. As a Welsh Member of Parliament, I am very concerned that the Bill could breach the devolution settlement, whether in Wales, Scotland, local authorities in England or London. In clause 3, it could particularly affect health services and the education of those aged 17.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

Order. As we have had a debate about Jedi knights, may the force be with you all.

Alan Meale (Labour, Mansfield)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

Amendment 11, in clause 3, page 2, line 24, at end insert—

‘(2G) None of the provisions of this section shall apply to services the provision of which is devolved wholly or partially to the Scottish Government, Welsh Government or Northern Ireland Executive.’

Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

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.

Jessica Morden (Labour, Newport East)

I refer the Committee to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. We also heard evidence from the Welsh Minister for Public Services about the firefighters’ dispute over pensions, in which a solution was reached and the Fire Brigades Union put off strike action in Wales. Is that not a good example of where Wales is doing things differently?

Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

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.

Ian Mearns (Labour, Gateshead)

My hon. Friend outlines a coherent case. Although the Government maintain that they have the power to enact the Bill across the United Kingdom, it could in practice be enacted in very different ways in different parts of the United Kingdom. English citizens could end up with many fewer rights than their counterparts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Do we want English men and women to have fewer rights than their Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish counterparts?

Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

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.

Chris Stephens (Scottish National Party, Glasgow South West)

May I remind the shadow Minister of Dave Prentis’s evidence last week? I thought it was peculiar—perhaps the shadow Minister can enlighten us—that he said that, when it comes to check-off, it is not just about the devolved nations, but the new combined authorities. They will be allowed to do everything, but not talk to staff and trade unions about having check-off or not.

Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

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.

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Alan. As we have heard in eloquent speeches from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, and the hon. Member for Glasgow South West, amendment 90 and the rest of the amendments in this group aim to limit the geographical extent of the Bill. In the oral evidence sessions last week, we heard evidence from Roseanna Cunningham, the Cabinet Secretary for Fair Work, Skills and Training in the Scottish Government, and Leighton Andrews, the Minister for Public Services in the Welsh Government, about the collaborative relationship that these Administrations have with trade unions. That is, of course, laudable. There is absolutely nothing in the Bill that need cut across the positive relationships—the partnerships, as they describe them—between unions and Government in Scotland and Wales, any more than it will cut across the partnership and the positive relationship that we have with unions in relation to English matters.

The Bill is about ensuring that industrial action can go ahead only with a strong, democratic and recent mandate. It is about increasing transparency and accountability, both in strike ballots and in political funds. It is about protecting non-striking workers from intimidation and ensuring that unions take proper responsibility for picket lines. It is about securing transparency and value for money for the taxpayer. It is about creating an appropriate regulatory environment for unions. To me, these all seem to be reasonable objectives. How can we not want to apply these benefits uniformly across Great Britain?

Mike Emmott, senior policy adviser at the CIPD, who in general does not support the measures in the Bill, nevertheless put it eloquently when he told this Committee last week that it was appropriate for the Bill measures to be dealt with on a Great Britain-wide basis. He said:

“It is going to be quite odd for employers dealing with different rules applying in different jurisdictions, where there may be issues that go across the whole of the UK.”––[Official Report, Trade Union Public Bill Committee, 13 October 2015; c. 36, Q90.]

The Bill seeks to ensure that when the lives of commuters or patients or parents of school-age children are disrupted by strike action, that action is supported by a significant proportion of union members. In particular, we are seeking to protect the users of important public services from highly disruptive strike action that is driven by a small minority on the basis of an outdated ballot. The provisions of the Bill apply to the whole of Great Britain: to England, Scotland and Wales, to London, and to English local authorities. This is because all the provisions in the Bill relate to employment and industrial relations law, all of which are clearly reserved matters under the devolution settlements with Scotland and Wales. In Northern Ireland, on the other hand, employment and industrial relations are transferred matters; therefore, respecting the agreement that was properly reached with Northern Ireland, the Bill’s provisions do not apply there.

On that basis—that this is indeed a reserved matter—it is entirely in order for the Government to propose that the Bill applies to the whole of Great Britain. There are strong, practical reasons why employment law should apply across the whole of Great Britain. Under the devolution settlements with Scotland and Wales, Parliament devolved some responsibilities, while some remain reserved. Again, certain responsibilities are being devolved to local authorities in England and to the Mayor of London. None of the responsibilities that are devolved include employment law or industrial relations, so devolved matters are simply not at play.

The shadow Minister asked a number of detailed questions, which I will try to answer as best I can. Obviously contacts take place between officials in every Department here in London and officials in the devolved Administrations. I am not going to provide a running commentary or a list of them, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, in response to letters that the First Minister of Wales wrote to the Prime Minister on 9 September, the Prime Minister replied on 2 October. In response to letters from Roseanna Cunningham on 7 August and 9 September, she and I had a reasonably lengthy phone conversation on 8 October. I am always happy to speak to them and to discuss any concerns they may have.

The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth said that there had been suggestions by members of the Welsh Government, the Scottish Government and other local authorities that they might refuse to comply with the provisions in the Bill should it become law. I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that it is quite remarkable to compare the number of times you hear people threatening not to obey a law in prospect—when it is being considered by Parliament and when there is some chance of affecting the outcome of Parliament’s deliberations—and the number of times when those duly constituted public authorities actually refuse to obey the law of the land and put themselves in breach. Let us cross that bridge when we come to it. I do not anticipate those rather wild and lurid threats being carried out—they are, after all, being made by institutions and individuals who oppose the Government politically and oppose the measures. They are, of course, entitled to use, in rhetoric, whatever arguments they like, but ultimately what they do is what will count.

Similarly, the number of times when it might be claimed that a legislative consent motion is required is very different from the number of times when it is actually required. When it is required is determined by the devolution settlement and by whether a matter is reserved or not. As Ms Cunningham herself has admitted, it is absolutely clear that, currently, employment law and industrial relations a reserved matters. There is absolutely no question about the full right of the UK Parliament to make laws that affect the whole of Great Britain on those matters.

Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

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?

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

No, I do not accept that. The hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that minor changes in how individual employees pay a subscription to a particular membership organisation is a challenge to the ability of the devolved Administrations—the Scottish or Welsh Governments—to run their national health service or their schools. That seems ludicrous to me. It is, of course, a matter of employment law and it will, therefore, apply to people who work in public services that are, themselves, devolved, but the idea that it will prevent or interrupt the policies of those Governments towards their public services is to overstate the case.

Stephen Doughty rose—

Jo Stevens (Labour, Cardiff Central)

rose—

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

I am happy to give way to the hon. Lady, but I do not want to have an endless ping-pong session with the hon. Gentleman at this point.

Jo Stevens (Labour, Cardiff Central)

I refer the Minister to the letter of 14 October from the Welsh NHS Confederation to his colleague, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, which states:

“We feel that some of the proposals outlined in the Trade Union Bill could have a detrimental effect on this relationship”—

with trade unions—

“and potentially lead to unnecessarily challenging industrial relations in future…strike action in the NHS in Wales over the last decade has been minimal, despite significant organisational change and the introduction of significant changes to terms and conditions, so we do not believe that any additional measures to protect the public from strikes are necessarily required.”

Will the Minister comment on that?

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

Yes. In a sense, the answer is the same. Everybody is entitled to say exactly what they think. I encourage it, I welcome it and we will always listen to any representations. We disagree. We believe that those people are overstating the case and that, when the Bill becomes law and the provisions are implemented—in Scotland and Wales as well as in England—it will not interrupt those very positive industrial relations, it will not interrupt those partnerships, and it certainly will not interrupt their ability to run their public services as they see fit.

Chris Stephens (Scottish National Party, Glasgow South West)

There is a difference between employment law and industrial relations and how they impact on public services. I am curious about the Minister’s comment about the provision of public services, because political parties say how they will deal with industrial relations in public services as part of their manifesto commitments, whether for Scottish, Welsh or any other elections. Surely, those mandates have to be respected.

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

We respect mandates, as I hope the hon. Gentleman will respect ours. I draw his attention to another example. The national minimum wage affects every single person who works anywhere in the United Kingdom. It is a reserved matter. It is something that this Parliament sets. I have not heard objections from the Scottish Minister—the very same Scottish Minister—saying that this is an egregious intrusion into Scottish matters and that somehow it is appalling that there is a national minimum wage. It is simply the case that we live in a system where some matters are reserved to the national—the United Kingdom—Parliament and other matters are devolved. The content of employment law and industrial relations is a reserved matter.

Stephen Doughty rose—

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

I think we have had enough, Sir Alan. I will give way one last time, because we are making incredibly slow process.

Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

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?

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

On the effect of the provisions on existing contracts, we have asked whether they are acceptable by international obligations and we are absolutely assured that they are. Again, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the national minimum wage. Its introduction had an impact on existing contracts, some of which therefore had to be revised to reflect it. This legislation will have no greater impact—in fact, rather less so—on existing contracts. We are confident that any effect it will have is entirely consistent with all the relevant legal framework.

Chris Stephens (Scottish National Party, Glasgow South West)

Will the Minister give way?

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

This is seriously the last time, because the hon. Gentleman has many that new clauses he wants to get to and I am just trying to help.

Chris Stephens (Scottish National Party, Glasgow South West)

The Minister has been most kind, so I will ask just this question. The cost to public bodies of reissuing new statements of particulars and contracts could be considerable. Will the Government provide finances to the public bodies in that position?

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

Sir Alan, you know as well as I do that if I were even to dare tiptoe on to the question of the financial settlement with devolved Administrations, there is literally a device implanted in my brain that would explode and decapitate me. I am not going to go there, however much pleasure it might give Opposition Members. [ Interruption. ] However, if the hon. Gentleman wants to write to the Chancellor—or to me and I can pass on the request—I will, of course, reply to his question.

If there are no further requests for interventions, I will conclude. The amendments in this group seek to use the Bill as a mechanism to carve out different arrangements in employment law and industrial relations for Scotland, Wales, London and English local authorities. Parliament has already determined that these matters are reserved. The amendments are an attempt to extend devolution by the back door and that is why we cannot accept them. I ask hon. Members not to press the amendments.

Jo Stevens (Labour, Cardiff Central)

In opposing clause 3 and speaking in support of our amendments, I wish I had the faith in the legal advice that the Minister seems to have in his lawyers. I remind the Government of the evidence that we heard last week from Professor Keith Ewing, professor of public law at King’s College, London, about the Bill being incompatible with settlements in Wales and Scotland, which is entirely contrary to the position that the Minister has just asserted. The Committee will recall that Professor Ewing said:

“The Government are walking, almost blindfolded, into a major constitutional crisis around the Bill. That constitutional crisis could be as explosive for this Government as the poll tax was for the Thatcher Government in the late 1980s and early 1990s. This is a big, big problem, and I am not sure that people have really thought through the consequences.”––[Official Report, Trade Union Public Bill Committee, 15 October 2015; c. 129, Q346.]

Not having thought through the consequences is a recurrent theme in the Bill. I appreciate that the Government seem to have struggled to give examples of good industrial relations in England. Almost every example of industrial action and dispute that they have referred to has involved employees in London, which I would suggest is a reflection on the Mayor of London rather than on current industrial law.

In Wales, the Welsh Labour Government have taken a very different approach and have a constructive industrial relations strategy at the heart of their policy making and their legislative programme. The Welsh Government understand the importance of constructive industrial relations to the economy and the public. As the First Minister, Carwyn Jones, said in his written statement on 9 September, the Bill

“has the potential to cause significant damage to the social and economic fabric of the UK.”

The Committee is well aware of the view of the First Minister and the Welsh Government that the Bill offends the devolution settlement. It intrudes into Welsh jurisdiction and devolved powers. Significant elements of the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth has pointed out, refer specifically to public services, which are unquestionably devolved to the National Assembly for Wales. They will require its legislative consent. The Committee has also heard evidence from the Minister for Public Services, Leighton Andrews, confirming this. Clause 3, which requires the additional 40% overall membership support threshold for industrial action, includes health services, education of those aged under 17 and fire services. Some devolved transport responsibilities such as highway maintenance may also be affected.

The Government will also be aware that all public bodies in Britain are required to have regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, but the duties in Wales and Scotland on this are much stronger. That raises an additional area of concern about the breach of the devolution settlement that the Bill presents in relation to public services.

Lisa Cameron (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow)

Is the hon. Lady as surprised as I am that the Minister’s response appears somewhat flippant, as though he wishes to call the bluff of the devolved Governments and the councils? There is little recognition of possible legal repercussions, costs and contingencies for the public.

Jo Stevens (Labour, Cardiff Central)

I absolutely agree, and that is a risk that the Government are taking. The Bill has significant equality implications, despite the suggestion otherwise in the equality impact assessment—which reads, frankly, as though it was written on the back of a fag packet. The Bill presents a real danger that decades of progress on equality in the workplace will be undermined through the erosion of trade union rights. We know that trade unions are one of the best protections from discriminatory treatment in the workplace, with trained officers and representatives who deal with a range of workplace issues, protecting equality of treatment and, in the process, saving employers from reputational damage and litigation. It is simply not acceptable or legitimate for the UK Government to impose the Bill on Wales.

We have heard that the First Minister wrote to the Prime Minister to set out his position and his concerns clearly and constructively. The Prime Minister’s response has been described by the Minister for Public Services as disappointing. I think he was being too polite. I would go further and describe it as inadequate. It failed to acknowledge any devolved interest whatever. We have heard from the Minister for Public Services that the Welsh Government are considering how they would seek to protect legitimate, devolved interests, including devolved public services, from the Bill, including tabling a legislative consent motion.

I go back to the comments of Professor Ewing from the beginning of my contribution. Do the Government really want to mire themselves in expensive, lengthy litigation with the Welsh Government over the Bill, played out in Supreme Court? Do the Government really want to suffer another embarrassing defeat as they did over the Agricultural Wages Board litigation with the Welsh Government?

The Bill was the subject of a debate in the Welsh Assembly last week. The Assembly Member for Pontypridd summed up the view of the Welsh Government by saying:

“We do not need this law in Wales and we do not want this law in Wales”—

it sounds a bit like Dr Seuss, this—

“And I know that we will do all that we can to support all those who oppose this Bill and, if necessary, to challenge its legitimacy in the Supreme Court.”

The Government have been given a clear warning. By accepting our amendments to clause 3, the Government have the opportunity to save time, save face and save taxpayers’ money. Will they take it?

Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

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.

Alan Meale (Labour, Mansfield)

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman does that, I remind Members, in dealing with such amendments, that the mover wants to respond too, and that they will have the opportunity to have a more wide-ranging debate on matters that have been raised in the stand-part section of this consideration. I ask them to keep succinctly to the topic in hand, or we will not have time to deal with all the measures that concern us.

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

I am sorry to reduce the agricultural wages case to the level of Dr Seuss, but do you agree, Sir Alan, that within the agricultural wages case it was found, in principle, that although agriculture is a devolved matter—that matter was won by the Government—the wages aspect is not? It was because it was a mixed Bill that there was the result that there was. This is quite different. This is a Bill about industrial relations and trade unions. It is quite simple and obvious that this a reserved matter.

Chris Stephens (Scottish National Party, Glasgow South West)

This has been an interesting debate about the group of amendments on the impacts on the devolved Administrations and other public bodies. It is interesting that some know better than others the effects that this will have on those bodies. I shall respond first to the shadow Minister’s gentle rebuke on the SNP’s amendments only applying to Scotland. He indicated that he respects our mandate on that and I agree with his point that the group of amendments seeks to enforce what has been referred to as the respect agenda. We hear from the UK Government that they respect the devolved Administrations and other public bodies, but with these amendments we want to ensure that that takes place.

Like the shadow Minister, the SNP opposes all of the Bill and will be voting for many of the amendments and against the clauses. We agree on his point about solidarity; we may have different approaches, but I assure him that we are in solidarity with all workers in the UK regarding the Bill, although there may be some differences in how we want to achieve that. I would go as far as to say that if the Bill were introduced in another nation state, we would oppose it and would be raising it in this Parliament, as we do with any abuses of workers’ rights across the world. There is no contradiction in supporting the consent amendments in this group and those that want to take workers out of it.

I turn to the hon. Member for Gateshead’s contribution about English workers having fewer rights. The general secretary of Unite, Len McCluskey, commented about that in his evidence, saying that that was one of the dangers that the Bill would introduce. The Minister seems to indicate that it is settled that employment law is reserved, but that is not the case. A new clause is being introduced to the Scotland Bill. I do not want to touch on the Scotland Bill too much, but a new clause is being inserted for debate, it will be put to the parliamentary test and the parliamentary verdict on that is yet to be given.

Nor have the Government taken into account the fact that Scotland has a different civil and criminal law and a different legal jurisdiction. That was also mentioned in the evidence from Thompsons Solicitors. Given that the Bill touches on criminalising certain behaviour, more consultation with the devolved Administrations is required. I certainly take the view that a legislative consent motion is needed, as is consent across the board in the public services.

The Minister asked me to write to him in relation to the costs to the public sector in terms of individual contracts. I wrote to his colleague in the Cabinet Office on this, and I am still waiting for a response. My concern is that some of the Bill relates to the agenda of the TaxPayers Alliance, which I believe is based on ignorance of the issues. It does not even take into consideration the fact that public services actually gain income from facility time and, indeed, from check-off. That is being ignored. It is very dangerous indeed to interfere with the collective bargaining units that exist across the UK, which is what the Bill seems to do.

Our view of the Bill is that it is ideologically driven. The Government seem to want to implement their ideology in all parts of the UK, even those where they have no mandate, and on that basis we intend to press amendment 90 to a Division. We will also want to press amendments 84 and 85 when we reach the relevant clauses.

Clause 3 - Ballots: 40% support requirement in important public services

Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

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

Alan Meale (Labour, Mansfield)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

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

“the provision of essential public services.”

Amendment 6, in clause 3, page 2, leave out lines 7 and 8.

Amendment 9, in clause 3, page 2, leave out lines 11 and 12 and insert—

‘(2D) In subsection (2B) “essential public services” means those services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population.”

Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“education of those aged 17 and under”,

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

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

and “border security”.

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

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

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

Julie Elliott (Labour, Sunderland Central)

Does my hon. Friend agree that many trade unions in this country also have internal procedures whereby they will ask for a higher threshold on certain ballots for strike action in order to make sure that the result is overwhelming, and well beyond what is legally required?

Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

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.

Jo Stevens (Labour, Cardiff Central)

We have heard numerous submissions in evidence to the Committee, both oral and in writing, that the Government’s definition of “important public services” is at odds with the definition of essential services used in international law, but if we go outside the legal technicality of this broad definition, there are many practical considerations to assess when it comes to important public services and I do not see that the Government have put any thought into those practicalities on the basis of the Bill as drafted.

First, knowing who is deemed to be an important public servant is not as easy as it may seem. The neat categories defined by the Bill might look simple on paper, but they are far less clear in practice and in workplaces up and down the country. My hon. Friend gave us an example about education establishments covering people who are under 16 and those who are over 16. How will that work in practice? How will this legislation work in a sixth-form college with a mix of students, where a teacher could be teaching at a number of levels and with different age groups?

The situation is further muddied by the order-making powers contained within these clauses, which mean that when we come to vote we still will not know what specific roles in each of the six sectors that are in the clause are covered. We are told that the 40% double threshold will apply to private companies supplying public services. It is ironic that the Government have been so desperate to reduce the public sector and outsource these services to private companies so that shareholders can profit, yet when it comes to a trade union dispute, the Government are desperate to bring them back into the public sector setting so that they can impose the double threshold on them. Will the provisions apply to private sector companies that provide goods and services to so-called important public services as ancillary services? Can the Minister tell us whether, for example, private sector commercial provision of school meals to state schools would be caught by clause 3?

Nuclear decommissioning has been included in the Bill, yet this is a heavily unionised sector with a history of excellent industrial relations. Its inclusion seems excessive and counterproductive. There was a suggestion in the consultation published by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills that management, cleaning and other support services would be included within the definition of important public services, because without them there could be an adverse impact on service provision. It is clear that there is potential within those order-making powers to allow more and more roles within these sectors to be deemed as “important” and therefore subject to the double threshold. We will end up with threshold creep.

Given everything that we have heard today and in the evidence sessions last week, it bears repeating that it is not legitimate—Amnesty and Liberty witnesses confirmed this—to restrict a fundamental right because it may inconvenience the public or businesses. Of course, no-one wants that to happen, but on every measure we have seen the public support the basic right to strike as a last resort, and these measures make that much more difficult for a large body of working people.

Finally, the logistical and organisational difficulties, alongside the potential for increased costs that this measure presents to trade unions that want to ballot their members, are significant. The industrial landscape after the Bill will mean that some sectors in the same trade union will have different rules applied to them. In some large disputes, unions may simultaneously need to ballot members in “important” and, for want of a better term, “less important” services around exactly the same issues. With the powers that the Government are awarding themselves, who is “important” within those defined sectors could change from ballot to ballot. Have the Government thought about these practicalities? This is all alongside the newly empowered and defined certification officer, who will have new resources to seek out and penalise unions for any mistake around balloting and then charge them for the luxury of that investigation.

The Bill in its entirety introduces swathes of red tape for trade unions and this definition is a key factor in that red tape. Far from simplifying or modernising industrial relations, the Bill will frustrate and complicate them. The clause will create a mess. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether those who will have to clean up after it will be defined as ancillary services and subject to a double threshold too.

Julie Elliott (Labour, Sunderland Central)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Sir Alan. I want to speak in support of the amendments in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends concerning the differences between “essential” and “important” public services. I totally agree with the comments from my hon. Friend, who has outlined the problems very clearly.

As written, these clauses unworkable in practice. Everything I have said so far in this Committee has been about the practicalities of the Bill and that is really where I want to start today, but before doing that, I want to talk about the definition of essential public services. It is a well established, well trodden path: everybody understands what it is. The Conservative manifesto and Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech both talked about essential public services. During our consideration of the previous group of amendments, the Minister said, “Of course, we respect the mandate of the commitments made in manifestos.” If that is what he believes, this flies in the face of it and is an absolute contradiction, so I would like to hear his comments on that matter.

The TUC is a representative body of 52 trade unions, most of which are not affiliated to a political party, representing almost 6 million people—the TUC expresses the views of a substantial body of people. On pages 2 and 3 of its written evidence, the TUC mentions that the Employment Lawyers Association

“has warned the government against introducing thresholds to services not covered by the ILO definition of ‘essential services’.”

The ELA clearly recognises that there will be problems with the definition. Page 3 of the evidence states:

“The TUC is concerned that the Bill does not define ‘important public services’. Instead the government plans to specify which workers will be covered by 40 per cent threshold in regulations. MPs will therefore have limited opportunity to scrutinise and amend new legislation which restricts the democratic rights of millions of UK workers.”

In oral evidence, Dave Prentis, the general secretary of the largest public sector union, Unison, talked about life and limb cover; but in their oral evidence some of the people who support the Bill did not seem to understand either what life and limb cover is or that it even exists. Dave Prentis’s evidence is highly pertinent. Once again, I feel that the Government are heading blindly into legal action. Recklessly changing the definition will cause major problems and ultimately could restrict, by the back door, the right of workers in the private sector to take what I regard as legitimate strike or industrial action.

The public sector has changed out of all recognition over the past 20 years. It now has substantial organisations, whether in local government, the national health service or other areas. There is a melange of different constructs, whether they are outsourced by contracts, let by bidding, that contain clauses with which some of this legislation might clash, or whether they are in arm’s length management organisations. Will people in cleaning services, for example, be deemed as essential or important, or will they be deemed as not important? Different cleaning services in a hospital might be treated differently. Someone who cleans a reception area might be treated differently from someone who cleans operating theatres. All of those things will come into the mix at every stage of every different industrial dispute. The cost implications have not been thought through.

It would be much safer, and would practically avoid the risk of litigation, if we stuck to the term “essential public services.” The Conservative Government have a mandate for that from their manifesto commitment and from Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech. The term is well defined, unlike the alternative in the Bill, which will be incredibly difficult for MPs to scrutinise and will restrict the right of many people to take industrial action. Almost inevitably, the result will be litigation, which will cost taxpayers money. Every time the Government go to court when they have not thought proposals through—we saw many instances in the previous Parliament, particularly in the energy sector, where the Government lost cases—the cost of that litigation returns to the taxpayers, who fund Government court cases. I urge the Government to consider these proposals carefully. Although we disagree with the Bill’s substance, these amendments would at least make the clause workable. Also, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on his party’s manifesto.

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

I thank hon. Members for their contributions. The amendments strike at the very heart of the Government’s objective in introducing a 40% threshold for strikes in important public services. I remind the Committee why we are introducing this measure. Nowhere is the impact of strike action more severe than when it takes place in important public services. The reason for that, and it is a thread that runs through all of the sectors listed as important public services, is that broadly—I accept it is not the case in every single detail—each of those services, as public services, operates as a monopoly in the lives of those who rely on it as users. That is not to say that, in time, people cannot put their children into a different school, secure an appointment with a consultant in a hospital trust outside the area in which they live, or find other ways to make the journey that they do every single morning and evening to and from work. It does mean, however, that when strikes happen, it is impossible for the vast majority of the British public who rely on those services to secure that alternative provision within public services. It goes without saying that the Border Force is itself a public monopoly—quite rightly so—and although nuclear decommissioning may involve contractors, thankfully we do not have competing nuclear commissioning regimes.

Where people and businesses rely on the services every day and where they have no choice of an alternative service provider, we believe that those services represent the important service sectors where the additional requirement of the 40% threshold is justified. That threshold ensures that strikes affecting services in those sectors can go ahead only when a reasonable level of support has been secured by the trade union. We are not banning strikes; the legislation is about making sure that enough members support the proposed action before it can go ahead.

The six sectors set out in the Bill as being subject to the 40% threshold have been chosen precisely because they are those where strike action has the potential to have the most far-reaching consequences for a significant number of people. Opposition Members discussed the difference between important services versus essential services. They are right that the ILO defines “essential services” and that that is an accepted definition, but it does so for the purposes of making it clear that it is therefore allowable to prohibit the right to strike in those services. The right to strike can be entirely prohibited in the sectors that the ILO has deemed to be essential, which include some but not all of the same sectors that we have listed—for example, firefighting services, the hospital sector, air traffic control, public or private prison services, electricity services, water supply services and telephone services.

Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

Will the Minister give way?

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

No, not at the moment. I will make my argument, and then I will be happy to take as many interventions as hon. Members wish to make.

Because of the ILO's definition of essential public services as those where it is permissible to prohibit the right to strike we decided to clarify that clause 3 proposes not a prohibition or a strike ban but simply a threshold of support for a strike. That was intended to clarify that the services listed are not the same as those covered in ILO definition, but are important public services. To be clear, our manifesto named the four most important of those services to which clause 3 applies. We have an absolute manifesto mandate for the inclusion of fire, health, education and transport services. Since then, based on cross-government consultation, we have added border security and nuclear decommissioning. If Opposition Members want to argue that those two sectors are not important public services on which the public have good reason to rely, they are welcome to have a go. I accept that the sectors were not listed in our manifesto, but I feel pretty sure of what the public’s view will be of whether they should be included in the definition of “important public services”.

We will identify the people to whom the provisions will apply within the sectors in the regulations, and we have consulted properly on that. I suspect that Opposition Members would criticise us if we had just written in the Bill a precise breakdown of groups of employees within those sectors to whom the provision will apply without having consulted. We have consulted, and we received many responses. We will make clear proposals for who we expect to be covered by the provision before the Bill achieves Royal Assent.

Jo Stevens (Labour, Cardiff Central)

Can the Minister tell us when those regulations will be published?

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

I have consistently made it clear that it will be before the Bill receives Royal Assent. I cannot give the hon. Lady the precise timing. We do not know the precise timing of the Bill’s further parliamentary stages, because that is not entirely within our gift, but the regulations will come forward before the Bill receives Royal Assent.

Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

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.

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

It is always interesting to describe an argument one disagrees with as “convoluted”. My argument was not convoluted; the hon. Gentleman just disagrees with it. His argument was not convoluted either; I just disagree with him. I have made clear when the regulations will be brought forward—before Royal Assent—and I do not think I need to say any more than that.

I turn to amendment 4. In the modern economy, many people work in roles that encompass several different tasks and responsibilities, so it is likely that some workers who contribute to the delivery of important public services do not do so for 100% of their time. None the less, if such workers were absent during strike action, their absence would undermine the service. For example, a deputy headteacher might teach for only part of their time, spending the rest of the time on planning and management. That is why the Government propose to include all those “normally engaged” in important public services within the scope of the 40% threshold. We believe that that phrase is easy to understand and correctly encompasses those whose absence would adversely impact the public service.

On amendment 6, we have included so-called ancillary workers in the scope of the 40% threshold because they are often central to the operation of the important public services cited. For example, while hospital cleaners and rescue centre call staff are not front-line surgeons or firefighters, their work is critical to ensuring that front-line staff can deliver the service. Their absence can make the difference between the ability to run a service and it shutting down during the period of strike.

As I said, the Government consulted on these issues over the summer, and we are currently analysing the responses. That will help us in preparing the regulations, and I will take all views into account as we develop the secondary legislation to implement the detail of the threshold. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw amendment 4.

Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

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.

Chris Stephens (Scottish National Party, Glasgow South West)

Is the hon. Gentleman as confused as I am? The hon. Member for Cardiff Central made a similar point about some of the services being covered under existing legislation, such as life and limb cover. I am beginning to wonder whether it is not just the Government witnesses who do not know about life and limb cover but the Government too.

In addition, does the hon. Gentleman not think that the 40% threshold is dangerous? The last time a Government introduced such a threshold they had a small majority and ended up out of power for 18 years. That might happen again.

Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

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.

Clause 4 - Information to be included on voting paper

Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

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.”

Alan Meale (Labour, Mansfield)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 15, in clause 4, page 2, line 32, leave out

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

and insert “description of the”.

Amendment 16, in clause 4, page 2, leave out lines to 38.

Amendment 17, in clause 4, page 2, leave out lines 39 to 41 and insert?

“(2D) The voting paper must state whether the industrial action is intended to be continuous or discontinuous.”.

Amendment 18, in clause 4, page 2, leave out lines 39 to 41 and insert?

“(2D) The voting paper must state whether the industrial action is intended to be continuous, and if so the intended date for any of the affected employees to begin to take part in the action or, if discontinuous, the intended dates during which any of the affected employees are to take part in the action.”.

Amendment 19, in clause 4, page 2, leave out lines 39 to 41.

Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

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.

Ian Mearns (Labour, Gateshead)

The principle that my hon. Friend is outlining is solid. The Government have a hard and fast “one in, two out” rule for business regulation. When organisations such as the Federation of Small Businesses do consultations, their members say they would like less regulation but the organisations cannot put their finger on what they would like to get rid of. Things that would be difficult to get rid of normally come top of the list—VAT returns and health and safety regulations, which protect the employers as well as the employees in many respects. I am wondering whether my hon. Friend can tease out from the Minister what regulations on trade unions he would get rid of in order to impose this set of rules on them.

Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

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.

Jo Stevens (Labour, Cardiff Central)

I rise to speak in opposition to clause 4 and in support of amendments 14 to 19. From reading the clause, the Government appear to think that trade union members are not capable of understanding what they are voting on in a ballot on industrial action. That is a patronising attitude to working people, who do not lightly take industrial action; they consider carefully what they are voting for. They understand the issues. There is not one single shred of evidence of union members saying that they did not understand what they were voting on or why.

The Government propose changes to the law that will turn an industrial ballot paper from a succinct statement with a yes or no question to something resembling a legal disclaimer. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has said that the proposals are “counterproductive”. Employers’ lawyers have said that the proposals are vague and unworkable and that they will lead to legal challenges and expensive litigation. No one wants that—apart from the Government, it would appear.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth said, the purpose of the proposals appears to be to encourage court cases by employers. Witnesses to the Committee have said that they are not about information for union members, but ammunition for employers. Looking at the detail, the ballot paper must include

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

What does that mean? It has been criticised by lawyers across the spectrum for being so uncertain as to be meaningless. What is “reasonably detailed”? It is an oxymoron and it is contradictory. How will both sides of industry know whether something is detailed enough to be “reasonably” detailed or regarded as too detailed? Unions and employers will be in court every single time. What is “an indication”—a nod or a wink? This is not the language of statute, and I wonder whether it might come from the Prime Minister’s nudge unit. Anyone with any experience of industrial relations will know that the question of what is in issue in a dispute is often a matter of disagreement. This wording will further add to legal challenges.

The next requirement imposed by the Bill is to state

“the type or types of industrial action”.

What does that mean? We heard in evidence to the Committee that even Government lawyers themselves cannot explain it. The current definitions of “strike” and “action short of a strike” have been clarified by case law and amendments to statute over the years. They are now clear and well understood, so what are the “types” of action the Bill refers to? We are told that they include an overtime ban, for example, and work to rule, but those are not legal terms of art. Again, this will lead to expensive litigation and legal wrangling in the courts.

Finally, the union must state on the ballot paper

“the period or periods within which the industrial action or…each type of industrial action is expected to take place.”

Why should a union be required to state that information at the stage of the ballot, weeks before any action could lawfully take place, when they must in any event give notice of dates of action after the ballot is completed and before action takes place? The intention behind every single one of these provisions is to set legal traps for unions so that employers can run off to court and get injunctions to stop legitimate action.

Employers, however, do not want the provisions either. They fear the consequences. Employers’ lawyers have said they are concerned that unions will have to draw the descriptions on the ballot paper as widely as possible to give themselves legal protection. Unions will have to include every possible type of action they might take and set out every day on which they might take each type of action.

What is more, employers’ lawyers fear that to avoid legal challenges, unions will have to stick to every single detail spelled out in the ballot paper. They will not be able to resolve any issues in the dispute unless all issues are resolved, otherwise they will face legal challenge. They will have to take every type of action specified and on every single day specified, otherwise they will face legal challenge. How on earth is that supposed to reduce the number of disputes that take place? It will simply increase them.

Disputes will escalate. They will become more entrenched and more difficult to resolve, all because of these changes. That is why the CIPD says that the proposals are a “significant step back” that will “harden attitudes”. I invite the Minister to withdraw them, but if the Government persist with these counterproductive proposals that no one wants, they should be amended as we propose.

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

I am pleased that the hon. Lady gives me the opportunity to set out in more detail what sort of information we expect unions to include on the voting paper. I fear this may take a little time, but I want to address all the amendments tabled and why we will resist them.

I will start with first principles. We want unions to be absolutely clear with their members about what they are being asked to vote for, in order to ensure full transparency in any industrial action ballot. It is clearly in the interests of union members, as well as employers and the wider public who are affected by strike action, that those being asked to vote for such action can make a fully informed decision about whether to back it.

I remain concerned that merely requiring a trade union to state the trade dispute without requiring any further detail, as suggested in amendment 14, would not meet the objective of enabling members to make a fully informed decision. It would only require a very broad statement. In reality, it will in most cases mean that members have no more information about the dispute than they have from wider communications. It does not provide enough clarity for union members to determine whether they choose to support industrial action. That cannot be right or democratic.

Chris Stephens Will the Minister give way?

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

I will continue for a second and then give way to the hon. Gentleman; I owe him one, because I did not see him trying to intervene earlier.

I have a couple of actual strike ballot papers in front of me. They are quite hard to get hold of, so I have not got a huge number. On one, the only statement on the paper was “impact of redundancies”, which did not clarify in which workplace, which group of employees was affected or when the strike was proposed. That ballot paper provided a very vague, short description. Another ballot paper provided a vague but incredibly broad statement about

“adverse changes to pensions, workload, conditions of service, including pay and pay progression, and job loss.”

Neither statement is particularly helpful to those voting on the ballot because not enough information is given about when that dispute would be resolved, so that is not obvious to the person voting. Being told the location of the site of the affected workers would not necessarily help members to know what matters are at issue, and neither would knowing that the dispute is about pay, for instance.

Let us not lose sight of the potential wider benefits of the proposed change. As now, the employer will receive a copy of the voting paper, so including better information about why the industrial action is proposed should have the added effect of helping to eliminate any misunderstanding, which can creep in in such circumstances, between unions and employers about exactly what issues remain in dispute. In turn, that should facilitate employer discussions with the trade union about how the dispute might be resolved, where possible without recourse to industrial action.

Turning to amendment 15—

Chris Stephens (Scottish National Party, Glasgow South West)

Before he turns, will the Minister give way?

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

Of course. I was ploughing on and I did not mean to forget the hon. Gentleman. It is only because he is outside my peripheral vision—

Ian Mearns (Labour, Gateshead)

You should take the blinkers off, Minister.

Chris Stephens (Scottish National Party, Glasgow South West)

If the Minister wants to access other ballot papers, he should join a trade union. In my experience, when a ballot paper is issued, the trade unions are allowed to insert a sheet of paper that sets out fully the issues in the trade dispute, so why is the clause necessary?

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

I would simply say that if they all do that, and I agree that that practice is welcome, it should hardly be difficult just to provide a few more details on the ballot paper so that when somebody’s vote is decided, it is clear what they have voted for or against. I promise Opposition Members that from now on there are no blinkers on this Minister, as I am sure that they will be happy to admit.

Let me explain why we have used the words “reasonably detailed”, because the hon. Member for Sunderland Central in particular thought that was a mistake. That specific form of words is used in clause 4 to take into account the particular circumstances of each trade dispute. If there is any more detail that a union could reasonably give on the ballot paper, the requirement is not satisfied. For example, if the issue is identified simply as “pay”, it may well be right to say that there are further details that the union could have included. Those details might include which year’s pay offer is in dispute, and which employees are covered by the offer. Again, that links back to our overall objective to ensure that unions provide clarity to their members about what they are being asked to vote for so that there is full transparency in any industrial action ballot.

We think it is much more helpful to union members if a trade dispute that affects them in different ways is articulated in sufficient detail so that everyone knows the point on which they are being asked to make a decision on industrial action and how each individual is affected by the trade dispute. However, we do not want to put unnecessary burdens on unions by asking them to include a long and detailed account of the trade dispute. That would be onerous and would dilute the very clarity that we are seeking to provide. That is why the clause does not require a “reasonably detailed” description of the trade dispute. It is about balance, and the Bill as currently drafted best achieves that.

Amendment 16 would not assist members to understand what type of action they are voting for. That is particularly important because there is no definition of action short of a strike. If we do not require a trade union to state on the voting paper what specific type or types of action it is proposing, a member will not know what action he or she is being asked to back. Even stating that the proposed action is action short of a strike does not help members to make a sufficiently informed decision, because there are various types of action that amount to action short of strike. Just using that phrase will not help members to understand what they are voting for. For example, a member may support industrial action that amounts to an overtime ban, but not a period of work to rule. If the voting paper does not specifically state which of these actions the union proposes its members take, how will they know how to vote?

Having said that, I appreciate the point the hon. Gentleman made about there being a degree of uncertainty at the stage when the union is drawing up the voting paper about how the negotiations will continue to play out and therefore what action the union might subsequently take. Nevertheless, if the union has reached the stage at which it is asking its members to support a ballot for industrial action, it must surely have in mind a plan for such action. All we are asking in new section 229(2C) is that the plan should be disclosed to the union members. I do not believe that is unreasonable.

Tom Blenkinsop (Labour, Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland)

The Minister gave work to rule as one example of action short of striking. Can he define what work to rule is?

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

My understanding is that it is working to the contractually committed hours and not being willing to work beyond those or in a different place, perhaps, than contractually committed. I am sure I can provide the hon. Gentleman with the legal or commonly accepted definition, but that is my understanding.

Tom Blenkinsop (Labour, Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland)

Would the Minister apply that definition to all workplaces?

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

I do not think it is my job to apply it to any particular workplace.

Seema Kennedy (Conservative, South Ribble)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the clause is about giving certainty to all involved in business: the employers and the union members, the people who are voting? I draw the Committee’s attention to the submissions of Dr Marshall and, in particular, David Martin, who said:

“Communication with the workforce is fundamental”.––[Official Report, Trade Union Public Bill Committee, 13 October 2015; c. 16, Q42.]

The clause is a sensible evolution in the legislation and is just about ensuring clarity for all involved.

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention; she is absolutely right. In a sense, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland has, perhaps unintentionally, made my argument for me—I do not have to understand what is proposed on every single ballot paper; I am the mere Minister in this. The people who have to understand it are those being asked to vote on whether to strike—which, if they choose to, will have huge direct personal effects on those being asked to strike, as hon. Members have pointed out—or being asked to co-operate with an overtime ban or anything else. It is they who need clarity about what is being proposed, and that is all we seeking to ensure.

Tom Blenkinsop (Labour, Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland)

Will the Minister give way?

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

I am not giving way again; I need to make some progress.

On the period for proposed industrial action, a union member may be fully supportive if he or she knows that it would take place in late November or early December, but not if it was to take place, say, over the Christmas period. Trade union members may want to consider the proposal in relation to their personal circumstances, as well as their work. Amendment 19 would simply not meet that objective, because it would preserve the current situation, in which there is no requirement whatever to provide any information in the voting paper to union members about the timing of industrial action.

I have similar concerns about amendment 17. Simply knowing whether industrial action is to be continuous or discontinuous, without any further information about timing, does not help a member to understand when such action might take place. Indeed, I doubt whether the words “continuous” and “discontinuous” in the context of industrial action mean very much to a lay person. Surely it is the time period that is the key to ensuring that members have clarity about when action is due to take place. Of course, it is also important that employers know whether the proposed action will be continuous or discontinuous. That is why the notice of industrial action, which a union must provide to an employer under section 234A(3)(b) of the 1992 Act before taking such action, must include a statement to that effect. Crucially, however, that notice must also contain details about the intended dates for such action. Indeed, that is its purpose: to tell the employer exactly when the action will happen. That is in contrast with proposed new section 229(2D), which requires a union only to provide an indication of when the expected industrial action would take place, not a specific date or set of dates.

That brings me to amendment 18. To require a union to state whether the industrial action is intended to be continuous and to state the intended dates would be to require it to specify a particular date on which the action is to start—for example, from 15 October. That would be very restrictive; indeed, it is much more prescriptive than the requirement under clause 4, which, in this example, would just be to indicate the period of industrial action as being in, say, October. That would give a union the flexibility to start such an action on, for example, 1 October, 15 October or 25 October, and for it to last for, say, one day, one week or longer—subject, of course, to the union providing 14 days’ notice to the employer and the action taking place within the four-month time limit of the mandate.

I have even more concern about a union’s ability to meet the proposed requirement to specify that the action is discontinuous, together with the intended date for such action. That combination of words would effectively require a union to state up front and before it has even secured a mandate for action the precise dates on which such action is planned or intended. It would be much more difficult for a union to predict such dates so far in advance, and they may well turn out to be unreliable. For example, if the union finds that it does not want to take action starting on or specifically on those precise dates because negotiations are ongoing, it would no longer have a ballot mandate. The dates would need to be reliable or the union would risk misinforming members. Making a union set out its plan in such detail, so early, means that the dates would be very likely to change.

Having said that, let me be clear: it is entirely reasonable to require a trade union to specify that the action is discontinuous, together with the intended date for such action, at the point when it is serving notice of intended action to the employer under section 234A(3)(b) of the 1992 Act, as is the current position. However, to suggest that a union should articulate the precise dates on which it will take particular action so much earlier in the process is an entirely different proposition, and one I cannot support for the reasons I have outlined. I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

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.

Tom Blenkinsop (Labour, Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland)

In most unions, by the time strike action is taken, a local dispute will usually have been taken to a regional level, and if the matter was not resolved at a regional level, it will have been taken to a national level. That is certainly what happens in large private industry, particularly the steel industry. I imagine that there are such cultural norms in most trade unions.

Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

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.

Chris Stephens (Scottish National Party, Glasgow South West)

The hon. Gentleman will have heard me ask the Minister about an insertion that goes out with the ballot paper. Can he think of an example of any trade union that would not include with the ballot paper an insertion fully stating the trade dispute?

Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

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.

Tom Blenkinsop (Labour, Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland)

As a former trade union officer with the Community trade union, I was part of the National League of the Blind and the Disabled section, which deals with blind and disabled workers who work in Remploy factories—

Ian Mearns (Labour, Gateshead)

Who used to work in Remploy factories.

Tom Blenkinsop (Labour, Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland)

Sadly, that is right. My section also dealt with blind and disabled people working in sheltered workplaces, including at Ayresome Industries in Middlesbrough. As well as union officers, the unions brought in, over a prolonged period, signers and Braille writers to ensure that those employees were informed of the situation and the exact nature of any dispute.

Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

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.

Ian Mearns (Labour, Gateshead)

This is a very important point. Surely, in an industrial dispute there are people who will agree down the line with the union stance, others who are more ambivalent and some members who are against. When a union informs its members and updates them about what has been transpiring in the course of a dispute, members who are against taking industrial action will pass on any misinformation from their union to an employer and the employer will undoubtedly take legal action against the trade union for misinforming the workforce. Therefore, we are clearly seeing a measure here which is not necessary.

Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

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

Julie Elliott (Labour, Sunderland Central)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the whole premise of the Government’s argument about this part of the Bill comes from a belief that the unions are very top-down, imposing what is going wrong in the workplace, or what workers have a problem with? Whereas actually, the reality of industrial disputes is that problems arise from the bottom, from something that union members are not happy with, which the union officials are trying to sort out and resolve. If that fails, it is the union members that pressure for industrial action, often as a result of consultative balloting in the first place.

Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

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.

Clause 5 - Information to members etc about result of ballot

Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

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.

Clause 6 - Information to Certification Officer about industrial action etc

Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

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.

Ian Mearns (Labour, Gateshead)

That is an important point. Many employers will reflect that this would not do them a great deal of good in the public gaze. Strikes are often—almost without exception—symptoms of poor industrial relations within the workplace. Many employers, where those industrial relations have broken down to such an extent, may be rather concerned to find that the Government are proposing that detailed information about their workplace operations will be open to public scrutiny. That may well not be good for the very people that the Government are trying to protect here: businesses.

Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

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.

Jo Stevens (Labour, Cardiff Central)

Perhaps I can help the Committee because, before I came to this House, I conducted industrial relations on behalf of the business of which I was an owner with a recognised trade union. I would certainly not have wanted detailed information about the disputes, very few of which took place over a 26-year period, to be publicly available online for anyone else to see. This raises not only issues of reputation and industrial relations between businesses but also issues of commercial sensitivity that would adversely affect businesses. I am sure that is not what the Government want.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.