*CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY*
Baroness Angela Smith, Shadow Leader of the House of Lords
Debate on the Trade Union Bill political funding clauses & The Burns Report
16 March 2016
My Lords, we have returned to the issue of the trade union political levy and whether
their members should opt in to or opt out of their political funds.
To try and cut through the political rhetoric, Your Lordships House agreed to our
motion to set up a Select Committee. Its primary remit being to examine both the
detail and likely impact on the Governments proposals.
I pay tribute to the Chair of the Select Committee, Lord Burns and his committee for
the way in which they have dealt with all of these issues. Both the Report and the
evidence transcripts show detailed and forensic analysis which was only possible
because of the commitment of the committee members and their support team.
A week ago today, we had an excellent debate in this House on the committee report
and featuring thoughtful contributions from many Noble Lords including those who
served on that committee.
When the Minister replied to the debate she was unable not unreasonably, given
the tight time frame unable to fully respond to the Select Committees
recommendations. However, both she and the Minister in the other place, Nick Boles
have indicated that they are in listening mode and that the Government may be
willing to make some changes.
We await to hear from the Noble Lady, the Minister today and at the risk of stealing
her thunder I hope that on behalf of the Government she will feel able to accept the
amendment from Lord Burns. Or at the very least its core principles?
In establishing the Select Committee, we set a tough task. Because broader party
funding issues have been raised we asked that the Governments proposals be
examined in light of the Committee on Standards in Public Lifes Report. And also to
see if new legislation was needed in the interests of balance.
My Lords, they did better than that.
They used that remit to go beyond political views and opinion, and dig deeper than
any political differences in order to interrogate and analyse the facts. And also, to
find a way through that would recognise the intention of the Governments
Manifesto commitment, on page 49: transparent opt-in process for union
subscriptions to political parties and in the very next sentence to seek agreement
on a comprehensive package of party funding reform.
All, my Lords, without placing unreasonable and unrealistic demands on the trade
unions in meeting that commitment and therefore to ensure that opt-in would
happen rather than be made too difficult.
I think we all now accept that, although clumsily and inaccurately worded, what the
Manifesto meant was not trade union subscriptions per se, but the process by
which union members pay into their political fund.
It was helpful for the Select Committee to affirm that of the 163 unions, only 25 of
them have political funds. And of those just 15 are affiliated to the Labour Party, with
an average political levy for each person of less than 5 a year around 9p a week.
That fund may be used for a variety of political campaigns, for example against
violence or discrimination, or to promote safety in the workplace. And the fund may
also be used to make contributions to, or affiliate to a political party. The only main
political party that currently has affiliated membership of this kind is the Labour
Party.
In our debate last week, I provided evidence that the Governments Impact
Assessment was inadequate, including the bizarre claim on page 73 that: Our main
estimate is that there will be no change in the number of members contributing to
the political fund. We do not have reliable data to estimate any changes in the
proportions contributing.
So although the Government admits there is no evidence it still draws
unsubstantiated conclusions from that lack on evidence on the impact.
Fortunately, the Select Committee was more thorough and took evidence from a
number of sources. They concluded that the proposed change from an opt-out of the
political levy, to an opt-in, and I quote: could have a sizeable negative impact on the
numbers of union members participating in union funds.
And that, my Lords, is without the obstacles that would make opt-in more difficult,
namely having to be done in 3 months, in writing on paper, and then renewable
every 5 years. Because the Committee were optimistic that the Government would
negotiate on these terms.
And they should negotiate. Not only did businesses get two years to deal with the
issue of plastic carrier bags. In todays budget, the government has announced that
the drinks industry will have two years to prepare for a sugar tax.
It is almost as if the governments plans for opt-in were designed to make it as
difficult as possible.
My Lords, the Government claims it wants the process to be transparent. But these
measures could make it invisible. And therefore virtually impossible to put in
practice, let alone work.
And just to make it even harder the Government want to make it retrospective that
is, as well as new joiners to a trade union, all existing members to have to go through
the same process, in writing, within three months.
Thats some bureaucratic exercise with over 5 million people to contact all for just
9p a week.
In terms of the costs involved in switching to a new system, the Governments
Impact Assessment is again terribly deficient. It assumes trade unions will have a
100% success rate in contacting members by letter and getting responses. And then
when the 100% of members have replied, in writing, it will apparently take only 30
seconds to process each new application. It takes me that long to open the
envelope!
Ask any charity, any organisation however worthy and important its communication,
what the mailing success rate is? 10%? 5%? Some say even lower. Most companies,
including insurance companies where renewal is crucial and often a legal
requirement, write more than once and have follow up phone calls. Weve all had
those calls, My Lords multiple times, reminding, reminding, reminding.
So the 4 million plus that the Government estimates it will cost takes us into a world
of fantasy and fiction. To do it all properly will take much longer than a couple of
letters, with the likely overall cost in time, resources and money to be far, far higher.
USDAWs evidence to the Select Committee was particularly compelling on all of
these points. They said: In that three-month transitional period we would have to
communicate with 440,000 members. It would be a huge task to get them to fill in
forms to respond. ... We have a turnover of between 70,000 and 75,000 members
each year; about 20% of the union leave and join.
And my Lords, then, as one by one all of those hurdles have been negotiated and
members have opted in or out - they have to go through it all over again just 5
years later. Can anything have been so deliberately designed to make it as
complicated as possible?
Weve had some welcome indications that Ministers are in listening mode. The
Noble Lady, the Minister and Minister Nick Boles have both assured Parliament and
the Select Committee of this. That indicates certainly that the Government now
accepts its plans are disproportionate and that Ministers are willing to consider
changes. And I hope that this is the case.
My Lords, as I admitted during last weeks debate on the Committee Report, the
amendment doesnt provide for all the changes we on the Labour benches would
want to see. Even the amendment from the NL Burns will cause difficulties for both
the trade unions and the Labour Party both in the medium and longer term. It is
certainly not pain free.
I remain strongly of the belief that this part of the Bill is fundamentally flawed; and
that without broader measures on party political funding, it will have a
disproportionate and unnecessary negative impact on trade union political funds.
The measures proposed by the Government to bring in the opt-in go far, far beyond
any transparency requirements and are highly unreasonable. In turn that will, as now
evidenced by the committee report, have a major impact on Labour Party funding.
Therefore, we believe that this matter should be addressed in the context of party
political funding as previous reports, including the Committee on Standard in Public
Life, have recommended.
However, we on these benches also consider that the Select Committee approach
brings great credit to Your Lordships House. The Noble Lord, Lord Burns and his
colleagues have brought a logical, almost scientific approach, to this issue. Im sure
that we can all find parts of the report or recommendations with which agree or
disagree. But that in no way detracts from what is a thoughtful, intelligent and
practical approach.
And more than just being analytical and critical, the Select Committee have proposed
a route map that removes much of the unreasonableness and unfairness whilst still
fulfilling the Governments Manifesto commitment of transparency and providing
that trade union members should have to opt in rather than opt out. The
amendment in the name of the Lord Burns and others offers all sides in this debate
both a compromise and a sensible way forward.
My Lords, Ive already quoted from the Governments election manifesto. But theres
another quote on the same page about the role of the House of Lords that the
Government highlighted. It says: We will ensure that the House of Lords fulfils its
valuable role as a chamber of legislative scrutiny and revision.
And thats our role today.
It says much about YLH that, through both our Select Committee and the related
debates, we have examined this issue in such detail and have this amendment from
the Lord Burns and colleagues before us today. I know that in the Other Place there
were not such detailed debates at this or any other stage of the Bill on this
specific issue.
Like other Nobles Lords, Ive been reflecting on this and I wonder if its because we in
this House are not constituted as a wholly political chamber. And as were not so
party political or indeed, partisan weve examined this issue in an entirely
different way. We put facts first, then judgement.
And it is because of our respect for that process and the exemplary and thoughtful
work of the Committee, that we are prepared, in that spirit of compromise to
support Lord Burns in the whole of his amendment.
-Ends-
