| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Razzall: The word is "bravura".
Baroness Miller of Hendon: What did I say?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I was trying some speed talking to try to match the Minister and got caught up in it. I thank the noble Lord who corrected me. I was really disappointed when the Minister started off by saying that he did not appreciate the tone of my amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The implied tone.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: That is much gentler and nicer, if I may say so!
In my next group of amendments I shall say a little more about what I shall just touch on now in answering the Minister. At Second Reading I discussed union learning representatives and said how successful they were when they operated on a voluntary basis. I will come back to that in a moment.
I was trying to put down some markers as regards having union learning representatives on a non-voluntary basis. Once they become enshrined in legislation that is enforced on companies that are not ready for it, or whatever, they may not be as successful as when they operated on a voluntary basis. I was not saying that we should not have them but simply making the point that difficulties may arise in certain circumstances.In the other place the Minister was asked whether there was an organisation that would welcome union learning representatives. I believe that the answer was the CBI. But that was a sort of half answer as the CBI did welcome them provided they were introduced on a voluntary basis. However, some other organisations did not welcome them. One could look at my amendments in a constructive way and say that for five years we have had them—I believe that we have 3,000 of them—and they have worked well because they were accepted and they were voluntary. The position will now change. I refer to phrases such as "the employer should be given notice", or, "it should be reasonable". I shall read carefully what the Minister said. As I said, and I shall say it correctly, it was a bravura performance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lea of Crondall: Before the noble Baroness sits down, could I clarify one of the points she has made repeatedly, which concerns the benefit of having voluntary arrangements rather than statutory arrangements? We have been living for three years since the 1999 employment Act with statutory trade union recognition procedures. If you do not have a voluntary arrangement and there is still a demand for recognition, you go to the central arbitration committee and, ultimately, if the matter is pressed that far you have a ballot. If 40 per cent of those entitled to vote, vote yes, you gain recognition.
There was an understanding between the TUC and the CBI that, if you are going to do that, that is the best way forward. However, a great proportion of that iceberg is under the surface—I refer to the voluntary aspect—and on the top of it you have a little part which is statutory—that is what I call the bench-mark. I ask the noble Baroness to reflect on the fact that in one respect—this is a semantic point—trade union recognition is almost like recognition of Palestine in that it is a voluntary matter but one which is at the same time subject to some pressure. However, once the matter we are discussing settles down—it is often difficult to introduce it—it is operated on essentially a voluntary basis. Perhaps the noble Baroness would reflect on the fact that this sharp distinction between what is done voluntarily and what is done compulsorily, as it were, is being somewhat overdone in this debate.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 206 to 209 not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 210:
- Page 46, line 30, at end insert "and
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 210, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 212, 216 and 217. They all relate to the introduction of what are called learning representatives into the workplace.
I begin by hastening to assure Members of the Committee opposite that these amendments are most certainly not a bit of union "bashing". The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, is not in his place at the moment but I believe that he asked at Second Reading whether words of kindness such as "conciliation" ever passed the noble Baroness's lips. As a preface I wish to say that they often pass the noble Baroness's lips. It is important to get that matter into context. The only reason I did not answer the noble Lord before was that I had already withdrawn the amendment.
On the contrary, as I said when I mentioned this part of the Bill at Second Reading—I refer to the fact that this is not union bashing—there are already, I believe, 3,000 learning representatives. Where they have been established on a voluntary basis—I come back to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall—there appears to be no problem whatsoever and they are welcomed. However, the key phrase there is "on a voluntary basis", and Amendment No. 210 specifically deals with where the employer does not have any objections at all. When the Secretary of State was asked in the other place whether any employers' organisation supported the idea of learning representatives—and I mentioned this a moment ago—she incorrectly claimed that the CBI did. I will now quote the CBI correctly. It states:
I would like to return to another aspect of the CBI statement in a moment. The fact is that very many of the provisions of the Bill add to the costs to be borne by the employer. This in particular is one of them. An employer is in effect bound to pay for the learning representative, and for his time and that of the employees, while he is legitimately performing his functions.
The Employment Relations Act 1999 gave the unions enhanced rights to represent employees whether the employer wanted to recognise the union or not. In this next step the unions are seeking further access to the workplace by the insertion of learning representatives whose activities will, of course, eat into the working time of the employees. I am not saying that it would necessarily be bad—Members of the Committee opposite have pointed out that training is a very good thing. I am just making the point that it is something in the balance and in the equation that should be considered.
I do not know that the Minister will like my next phrase because the Government shy away from calling learning representatives "teachers". However, they
In my own experience as an employer—and I accept that it will happen—young girls were coming to me for clerical jobs, and although they could read and they certainly could write, it was quite extraordinary that they did not know the alphabet. And I found it practically impossible to teach them how to work on the telephone because they could not look up telephone numbers. The only way they could find a number was to get back to the operator, which was quite a sad reflection.
I also believe that there are many jobs where, with the virtual breakdown of the apprenticeship system, new employees are often thrown in at the deep end and they are unfortunately left to pick up the necessary skills on their own. In such cases the presence of a learning representative could be beneficial to both the employer and to the employee. However, as the CBI points out, it has to be for the employer to decide what degree of training is required for his particular employees, and not for the union to say to an unwilling employer that he will have to do A, B or C. Neither will it be fair to one who cannot afford the costs and loss of competitiveness that the imposition of a learning representative might entail.
Amendment No. 212 requires a learning representative to acquire some nationally recognised vocational training or teaching qualification. As a transitional measure, and to anticipate possible objections from the Minister, I have proposed two separate measures. First, I have suggested an initial period of one year from the passing of the Act for existing learning representatives and those who are likely to be appointed shortly to acquire the necessary qualification. Secondly, any new learning representative will have six months from his appointment time to acquire the qualification.
It will be noted that I have not prescribed the exact form of the vocational training or teaching qualifications that the learning representative will have to acquire. I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, is in his place because I can comment that he recently sent me a video in which he starred, promoting the work of the United Kingdom Accreditation Service. From this I believe there is ample scope for any learning representative who wishes to acquire the necessary qualifications to find a reputable organisation to provide him with them. The Minister should note that I said he starred in his film. I am not sure whether everybody had the opportunity to see that film, but it was very instructive.
I am sure it is nai
ve of me, but I cannot imagine that the Government will oppose this amendment because the implication would be that they do not care if
Amendment No. 216 limits the number of learning representatives to one per work site and the reason is self-evident. In the case of a small or medium-sized enterprise, even one representative might be a financial burden. More than one, with competing agendas and calls for time to carry out their functions, will be severely disruptive.
In the case of larger businesses, there is the problem that there may be several unions involved and the employer could be faced with the consequences of inter-union rivalry. If there is more than one union, they should get together and work out which will carry out the functions of the learning representative or persuade the employer that, as different skills are involved, their function should be divided in a way that is agreeable and convenient to the employer.
Amendment No. 217 is also self-explanatory and I trust the Government will accept it as a constructive correction to an obvious omission from the draft Bill. Subsection (11) defines a learning representative as a person who is appointed or elected by his union. The other essential qualification is that he should have the qualifications laid down in subsection (4). Those qualifications are those that the Government themselves stipulated in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), apart from the additional one that I just proposed in Amendment No. 212. It is, I understand, a rule of legal construction that if a later provision conflicts with an earlier provision, then the latter one prevails. In this case, as drawn, subsection (11) could arguably be said to override subsection (4); my amendment simply makes clear that it does not. I beg to move.
Lord Lea of Crondall: I want to make a couple of points on the procedures involved. There may be a misunderstanding on how the system would work in practice and this is illustrated by the remarks towards the end of the introduction by the noble Baroness, vis-à-vis inter-union matters and so on.
In practice, whether it is a voluntary agreement or, as I pointed out a few minutes ago, one that derives from the statutory procedures of recognition, there would be either a procedure agreement which was voluntarily arrived at, covering the areas of the recognition or, at the ultimate, the default procedure of the central arbitration committee.
In either case one would have to identify the various elements of the procedure agreement. As I think it would be translated on the ground in consolidation of all these issues under the trade union recognition, there would be the addition of this training element in the procedure agreement. It is a matter of axiomatic training in practice that if these things are to be consolidated into the procedure agreement—not the wages agreement, but the procedure agreement—it would determine who would be involved in representation of the employees on any particular question. One can, therefore, put the noble Baroness's mind at rest on that particular point.
I make one other remark. The noble Baroness seems still to be taking as axiomatic something that is the reverse of the case; namely, that this is going to undermine the firm's competitiveness. The noble Baroness has stated this so many times now that I feel I must pick it up. The regulatory impact statement is precisely intended to address that kind of question and it says the opposite, by a ratio of six to one. Therefore, we are being told that we have to look at the new world globalisation in a pragmatic, empirical way, based on the evidence and so on. That is what we are trying to do.
(c) the employer does not object to the provision of a union learning representative"
"The CBI supports the concept of learning representatives, but the right to appoint union learning representatives without the employer's agreement is unacceptable".
6 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page