| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I want to make one or two comments on what the noble Lord, Lord Lea, has said. One important thing that the House of Lords does is to scrutinise measures very carefully. Many of the things that we have been scrutinising over the past few sessions are matters that were not even considered in the other place; This one was, but many were not. There is enormous value in the fact that we scrutinise such matters and that we tease out each other's thoughts and so on. Therefore, I am not saying that I disagree with everything that the noble Lord said. I was very grateful to him for his comments. They may illuminate my thinking on certain matters in the future. I put it no stronger than that.
The noble Lord returned to the issue of the regulatory impact assessment and the benefits arising from it in a ratio of six to one. Unless I am totally mistaken in relation to the regulatory impact assessment, I assume that that has been carried out. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, as I may very well be, with regard to cases where there is already a universal learning representative; that is, in relation to voluntary cases.
I was trying to make the point that what one may get out of 3,000 voluntary ULRs in situations where the employer, the employee and everyone else likes the arrangement may not necessarily be the same in every case. The Minister may be right that competitiveness has not been affected, but that may not necessarily be so in all cases. I considered it necessary to scrutinise that point, to investigate it, tease it out and talk about it. I am sure that the Minister, if he is able to do so, will correct me if I am wrong, and we shall see how we proceed.
Lord Lea of Crondall: I want to add one sentence. Competitiveness has been affected, and it has been affected positively.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: Perhaps I may make one comment in relation to Amendment No. 216. As the noble Baroness said, it is good to exchange knowledge in these discussions. The amendment refers to,
- "no more than one learning representative".
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank the noble Baroness for that comment. We are talking about a new concept. At this stage one would hope that in a new organisation where the arrangement is voluntary it would probably work very well. However, that may not necessarily be the case; the arrangement may or may not work satisfactorily.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, introduced her remarks by saying that she was not union bashing, and I have to accept what she says. It is strange, therefore, that, when she referred to union learning representatives at Second Reading, she talked about having a curious image of unions infiltrating the workplace. We are not legislating for infiltration; we are legislating to ensure that unions can do even more than they do at present in workplaces where they are already recognised.
As I said in responding to the previous group of amendments, union learning representatives represent the modern face of trade unions. They provide important services to individual employees. They help employers to improve the take up of training and learning opportunities, and they produce a substantial net gain to the economy, as the regulatory impact assessment showed, as my noble friend Lord Lea reminded us.
The amendment would continue the existing veto which employers have over union learning representatives. It would restrict the positive role which unions can play in helping to address skill and learning deficiencies. It would hold up the development of the union learning representative system, denying individuals and, of course, employers the benefits which union learning representatives can bring. At present there are approximately 3,500 ULRs in a small fraction of the workplaces where unions are recognised.
The numbers are growing slowly by about 500 to 1,000 a year. If we extrapolate that, we would have around 10,000 in place in eight years' time. According to TUC estimates, unions believe that they could realistically appoint and support more than 22,000 representatives by that date if they were allowed to do so. That is a substantial difference.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, says that there will be a difference between those who are appointed voluntarily and those who might be appointed if this clause applied—the compulsory side of what we are proposing is damaging.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I do not believe I said there will be; I said there may be.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I accept that. I accept that that is what she said, but I believe that in fact the change will be in the other direction.
The fact that there are no statutory entitlements for time off restricts the activities of union learning representatives now. About a third of union learning representatives do not receive paid time off for training in their role. About a half do not receive paid time off to carry out their workplace duties. That has hindered the contribution which union learning reps can make and it has constrained the expansion of the network. I suggest that the implementation of the clause will not only increase the number of union learning reps but make them more effective.
I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, will recognise that our country's performance on skills and learning is not outstanding. Independent research has shown that ULRs bring real benefit to the workplace. We want to release this potential; we simply cannot afford to do otherwise. She believes that our approach undermines partnership but we do not think that way at all. We believe we are widening the role of the modern union, involving the union in the wider partnership of agenda, of improving workplace performance and enhancing the employability of the lower skilled. If we stifle the network, we are stifling the ability of unions to help individuals and businesses adapt to change.
The amendment will give the employer a say in the union's choice of its union learning representatives. It would allow an employer to say that he would object to time off for Mr A but not for Mrs B. We believe this is not just a mistake but actually improper. It would threaten the independence of free trade unions. Employers should not interfere directly or indirectly in the internal affairs of trade unions. Nobody contests the notion that shop stewards should have time off to engage in collective bargaining. Nobody contests the idea that union safety representatives should have time off. These rights to time off are not, and should not be, contingent on the employer's approval of the representative in question. We feel the same way about union learning representatives.
Amendment No. 216 would limit the number of union learning representatives that a union can appoint at any one workplace or establishment. We do not believe that this is necessary or desirable. The time off rights for union learning representatives are not the only time off rights for trade union representatives. There are time off rights for shop stewards and other lay representatives and the ULR clause is very closely based on those entitlements, as for health and safety representatives. However, none of them includes any limitation on the number of representatives at any workplace establishment and it is left to the unions to appoint the number that they believe is appropriate.
It is not in the unions' interests to create complicated organisational structures. Unions are by and large sensible and pragmatic organisations that have no interest in appointing union learning representatives who will not have enough to do. Anyway, employers are not interested in the number of union learning representatives. They are interested in the total amount of time off that they take and the associated circumstances in which it is taken. There is no need to
specify a particular limit on the numbers involved. There are safeguards to ensure that the total amount of time off is not excessive, not the number of numbers, as it were. Those safeguards are in subsection (8) of new Section 168A. They have to be "reasonable in all the circumstances", and there will be a code of practice to give guidance on the practical application of those time off rights.The amendment is also undesirable because it would restrict the flexibility with which unions could apply the time off rights. There may be benefits where several union learning representatives operate in tandem, each specialising in one aspect of the ULR task or a particular occupational category. Why rule out that in legislation? Why leave it to the employer's discretion to decide whether such flexibility is required?
Amendment No. 212 seeks to ensure that 12 months after the Act has been introduced only those individuals who have obtained a nationally recognised vocational teaching qualification, or who are training for such a qualification, will meet the training condition. We do not believe it is necessary or desirable that ULRs should be obliged to obtain formal qualifications. We have deliberately avoided being too prescriptive in defining the training condition. We did not want to discourage individuals from volunteering to become ULRs by putting obstacles in their way, and we do not think it is appropriate to treat all individuals as if they were the same, which they clearly are not. We could exclude highly suitable people, discouraging those who never achieved any qualification and who would be intimidated at the prospect of having to undertake such a formal step. Some of the most effective ULRs are those who come to learning late or who have, or have had, basic skill needs themselves. They can lead by example. They are unlikely to be encouraged to become ULRs if they have to achieve formal qualifications in order to be recognised.
In the New Year's Honours List this year, one such ULR, Tommy Dawkins from the Ceramics and Allied Trades Union, was honoured. He was encouraged to become a ULR after admitting to and dealing with his own illiteracy. It is inconceivable that he would have done so had he been expected to pass exams or undertake a vocational qualification. So we do not want a prescriptive definition of "sufficient training".
Amendment No. 217 adds extra wording to subsection (11). It provides a definition of a learning representative for the purposes of the new section. The amendment would add to this definition by requiring that a learning representative should be a person who is "qualified". The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, may think that this is consequential to Amendment No. 212. I have already explained why the requirement for a formal qualification is not acceptable, but there is no need to make a consequential amendment in subsection (11). There is already a requirement in subsection (3) that a ULR must meet the training condition in order to qualify for time off entitlements. The amendments are not only unnecessary but, I am afraid, they could be quite damaging.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: Before the Minister sits down, I seek some clarification. I must confess that I did not know what ULRs were. Clause 43 contains new Section 168A, which is entitled:
- "Time off for union learning representatives".
- "carrying on any of the following activities . . . analysing learning or training needs . . . providing information and advice about learning or training matters . . . arranging learning or training, and . . . promoting the value of learning or training".
I raise a second point about the Minister's response to my noble friend. It seems that you can have as much time off as you want provided that it is not excessive. Who will define "excessive"? It does not seem that the employer would define it.
The other point that struck me is that there is no limit on the number of ULRs. Four or five members of staff at not a very big location could all become ULRs. The Minister says that my noble friend's amendment is too prescriptive but I do not believe that the Bill is prescriptive enough.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page