Prison Officers Association – Written evidence (TUP0020)

The Prison Officers Association is an independent Union representing Employees in Prisons, Correctional Facilities and Secure Psychiatric Institutions. We are grateful for the opportunity to be consulted on clauses 10 and 11 of the Trade Union Bill and would comment upon your specific questions as follows;

  1. Clause 10 is intended to attack funding for the Labour Party whilst not affecting the Conservative Party at all. The clauses are a cynical and wholly partisan attack on the funding of one party, which can only be intended to undermine the democratic system. Where are the provisions dealing with rich Tory supporters? Where are the rights of shareholders to opt out never mind to opt in? Where is Government interference in the internal affairs of companies akin to the Certification Officer? All Unions are democratic institutions and their political funds and spending are controlled by their members via their annual or biennial conferences. It is always open to the membership to change the rules of a union concerning political expenditure. Further, all members are free at any time to write a simple letter to their Union to opt out of the political fund. This right is set out in every Union Rule Book together with a pro forma letter for members to use. It is unlawful for a Union to discipline or pressurise a member in any way for opting out. Further, all Unions are presently required to ballot their membership every 10 years in order to maintain the political fund. Voter response is low but always in favour. The format of such ballots is tightly regulated by the Certification Officer. A prominent legal commentator acting mainly for employers has described this proposed legislation generally as using a sledgehammer to crack a nut which isn’t there.

 

  1. Requiring an opt in will reduce the funding of the Labour Party because if you require people to take a positive step many will not due to apathy as opposed to opposition or may simply forget. This is amply demonstrated by the percentages voting in union leadership elections or amalgamations, or indeed General and Local Elections.  Indeed history shows us what the effect of opting in would be. Opting in was required in The Trade Disputes and Trade Union Act 1927 and resulted in a substantial drop in contributions to political funds (See House of Commons Briefing Paper No:593 of 8/8/13 at para 1.3).

 

  1. It will reduce the size of Unions’ political funds and their ability to protect and further the interests of its members.

 

  1. These proposals would reduce Labour Party funding, most probably significantly, for the above reasons.

 

  1. The new funding structures introduced by the Labour Party do not generate sufficient funds to cover the likely reduction these proposals would cause.

 

  1. Political contributions are widely defined particularly in the run up to elections. Reduction of the political fund will reduce the ability of unions to support a political party that is more likely to produce policies of benefit to its members. It will also further restrict Unions’ ability to contribute to charities or non-affiliated pressure groups for the benefit of its members.

 

2.

  1. If similar provisions were brought in for Conservative Party donors there would be some equivalence i.e. opt ins for shareholders and a ‘Certification Officer’ for companies.

 

  1. The opt in provisions proposed for unions would be much more onerous than those for other organisations. The correlation between that and the party support of such organisations is obvious.

 

 

  1. We are not aware of such evidence but the political parties themselves presumably are.

 

  1. These proposals are a one sided attack on the Labour Party, we anticipate that if they are taken forward the Labour Party and any fair minded politicians from other parties would oppose them thereby making any equable cross party settlement impossible. Indeed it might be possible that a Labour Party returning to power despite such partisan measures might consider an appropriate response.

 

  1. Unions are already required to provide an annual return to the Certification Officer detailing their income and expenditure. In addition all members are free at any time to inspect the books of unions to check exactly what their subscriptions are spent on. Members are then free to pursue claims to the Certification Officer if there are any apparent irregularities. The Certification Officer already has effective powers to deal with any such infringement. We are disappointed that the government is proposing an additional level of ‘red tape’ when members are already properly protected.

 

STEVE GILLAN                                         

For and on Behalf of the POA

 

12 February 2016