TU Bill : ‘Biased’ plans slammed by Lords

Buried within the trade union Bill are plans to choke Labour party funding by changing the way members sign up to contribute to unions’ political funds.

 
It was an unabashedly partisan move that today (March 2) the House of Lords ripped apart.

 
In a new report, a cross-party Lords committee slammed the way the government has aimed to implement its proposals to require union members to opt in to political funding instead of opting out, as they do now.

 
The report could very well throw a spanner in the works for the trade union Bill, which may be delayed until there is significant progress on political funding reform talks across all parties.

 
The Lords select committee report highlighted that all evidence points to the fact that Labour party funding will take a substantially hit if an opt-in system were introduced.

 
Trade union political funding has before used an opt-in system, and the Lords committee noted that when this was first introduced in 1927, the percentage of members choosing to be part of their union’s political fund dropped from 75 per cent to less than 50 per cent.

 
Northern Ireland has historically used an opt-in system since the 1920s, and there, only 28 per cent opt in to their union’s political fund, compared to rest of the UK that uses an opt-out system, where a full 85 per cent of union members contribute to the fund.

 
Conservative estimates show if opt-in measures go through, Labour party funding could take a hit of £6m each year – a substantial portion of the party’s total funding.

 
In another clear attempt to hobble trade union political funding, the government has gone even further by proposing that the opt-in process should be conducted by paper only and that members should be asked every five years whether they want to continue opting in to their union’s political fund.

 
“These provisions…do not make it easy for union members to opt in; rather, they provide points of friction which will discourage opt-in,” the Lords committee noted.

 
No popular mandate
The committee pointed to the fact that Tory government had not included its specific plans on changes to trade union political funding in its election manifesto, and so concluded that the proposals do not have a popular mandate.

 
What’s more, the committee highlighted that the proposals could only be seen as a partisan attack if they weren’t negotiated as part of wider political funding reform.

 
“If any government were to use its majority unilaterally to inflict significant damage on the finances of opposition parties, it would risk starting a tit-for-tat conflict which could harm parliamentary democracy,” the report noted.

 
Indeed, Tory party funding – which relies on large donations by corporations and wealthy individuals – are currently not subject to any restrictions.

 
Unite general secretary Len McCluskey hailed the Lords report.

 
“The report confirms that reversing the current ‘opt-out’ process to ‘opt-in’ would have a huge and significant impact on Labour’s finances,” he said. “All members of the cross-party committee agree that it would take at least 12 months to implement such proposals, and the majority consider it should only apply to new members.

 
“With nothing being done to address big donations to the Conservative Party, I hope the report paves the way for a fair, reasonable and lasting agreement on party funding – in stark contrast to David Cameron’s partisan attack on Labour and the trade unions, and by extension democracy itself.”

 
‘Appalling message’
“The Conservatives’ approach to trade union members is that they are the ‘enemy within’,” McCluskey added. “That is an appalling message to send to six million workers but it is what drives this government’s attack on trade unions’ ability to stick up for working people.

 
“Thankfully the peers, who have taken extensive evidence, take a different approach,” he noted. “They have concluded that trade union political funds are an important contributor to a healthy democracy. Take them away and we are left with a gaping hole where there ought to be opposition, not for the sake of it but because all governments need to be held to account.

 
“These funds are not just about being able to shine a light on what government does,” McCluskey argued. “They also help unions campaign more broadly. How else can trade unions, for example, motivate working people to vote in the upcoming EU referendum if we have been gagged?”

 
This was a point that Unite political director Jennie Formby has also made. She noted that instituting opt-in measures would harm not only the Labour party but would also silence all trade union members’ political voice.

 
“What many people don’t understand about the political fund is that it’s not only about supporting the Labour party,” she explained. “Any political activity that trade unions undertake – from lobbying against the trade union Bill to opposing cuts to public services – must be legally financed by money from the political fund.

 
“If the opt-in measure slashes trade union political funding, then so much of the vital work trade unions do to represent working people on the political stage would become effectively impossible,” Formby warned. “This is total and complete censorship by the backdoor.”

 
McCluskey went on to say that attacking trade union funds “puts British democracy in grave danger.”
“It takes us back to the dark ages when only wealth and privilege could determine the laws of these lands,” he said.

 
“Under the Conservatives we are steadily marching towards intolerant and authoritarian government – and nobody voted for that. The peers are saying to the government do not go there. Think again. I sincerely hope that ministers listen, set down their dogma and act for the national and not party self-interest.”

 
Stay tuned on UNITElive for the latest updates as the trade union Bill goes through its report stage in the House of Lords on Wednesday, March 16.