Richard Fuller is MP for North East Bedfordshire.
This week, with the support of more than 50 of my backbench colleagues, I wrote to the Cabinet Office calling on them to limit how much taxpayers’ money can be spent on trade union duties.
The principle is clear enough: the work of trade unions should be paid for by their members, not the taxpayer. If not eliminated altogether, then strict limits should be placed on the time and funding for duties for which the latter is liable.
I want to explain why a change to this issue represents a welcome exercise in thoroughly conservative economic principles, with which we all agree and want to see more of from this Government.
The use of taxpayer money to fund trade union duties is called “facility time”. Recent research from the TaxPayers’ Alliance shows that in 2020-21, 23,545 union officials in the public sector cost taxpayers nearly £100 million in trade union facility time, with estimates suggesting that the figure could even be higher when unreported facility time is taken into account. In total, it could cost taxpayers up to £200 million a year.
More than half of these trade union reps were employed by local authorities which deliver vital services, and a further quarter by the NHS, which is already under pressure to deal with the post-Covid backlog. Indeed, over a thousand public sector workers spent all their working time on union duties. The proportion of total wage bill costs granted for facility time varies markedly across the public sector, frequently in excess of the average for the core civil service of approximately 0.05 per cent of the total wage bill.
How can it be right for taxpayers to be made to shoulder this burden when unions are already capable of raising substantial sums?
The existing guidance for facility time used by the civil service should be extended to cover all public sector employers – and the spending cap reduced to the current civil service average of 0.05 per cent.
A cap should also be imposed to set at a maximum of 50 per cent on the proportion of time that any individual public sector employee may allocate to trade union duties: an end to full-time union officials paid by the taxpayer, a practice that should have ended long ago.
The Trade Union Act 2016 gave ministers reserve powers regarding facility time. These powers extend to the publication of information; costs to public funds; the nature of work carried out; whether the work is relevant to the amount of facility time and any other matters considered relevant. In other words, Ministers don’t even need to change the law to tackle this issue.
This reform would signal a return to conservative economic policies where taxpayers are no longer the first port of call for every demand and where we restore our faith in the wisdom of people being left free to spend and invest more of their own money.
We should ask the state to do fewer things, but demand that the state does them better. The state is now overextended, and taxpayers know they are getting poor value for money. Conservatives should now seek to pare back the state and install tougher oversight of service delivery.
We should take a pragmatic approach to achieving Net Zero by 2050. By working at the pace of innovation rather than exceeding it, we can achieve Net Zero, but with a net profit to the country.
And we should restore our trust in free trade and competitive markets. We have learned over centuries that creating an economy which ensures that the potential of all our people can be tapped, where risk is encouraged and rewarded, and where the United Kingdom stands forcibly for global free trade, is the surest foundations for long term prosperity.
Our party understands that over-powerful unions are not good for the country, or for the principles of low taxes, limited government and economic liberty which we all support.
Saying no to taxpayers’ money being spent to subsidise trade union duties will save £100 million in efficiencies, perhaps more. A small step, but the first of many, to show that taxpayers will no longer be taken for a ride. And to signal our support for true conservative principles too.
Richard Fuller is MP for North East Bedfordshire.
This week, with the support of more than 50 of my backbench colleagues, I wrote to the Cabinet Office calling on them to limit how much taxpayers’ money can be spent on trade union duties.
The principle is clear enough: the work of trade unions should be paid for by their members, not the taxpayer. If not eliminated altogether, then strict limits should be placed on the time and funding for duties for which the latter is liable.
I want to explain why a change to this issue represents a welcome exercise in thoroughly conservative economic principles, with which we all agree and want to see more of from this Government.
The use of taxpayer money to fund trade union duties is called “facility time”. Recent research from the TaxPayers’ Alliance shows that in 2020-21, 23,545 union officials in the public sector cost taxpayers nearly £100 million in trade union facility time, with estimates suggesting that the figure could even be higher when unreported facility time is taken into account. In total, it could cost taxpayers up to £200 million a year.
More than half of these trade union reps were employed by local authorities which deliver vital services, and a further quarter by the NHS, which is already under pressure to deal with the post-Covid backlog. Indeed, over a thousand public sector workers spent all their working time on union duties. The proportion of total wage bill costs granted for facility time varies markedly across the public sector, frequently in excess of the average for the core civil service of approximately 0.05 per cent of the total wage bill.
How can it be right for taxpayers to be made to shoulder this burden when unions are already capable of raising substantial sums?
The existing guidance for facility time used by the civil service should be extended to cover all public sector employers – and the spending cap reduced to the current civil service average of 0.05 per cent.
A cap should also be imposed to set at a maximum of 50 per cent on the proportion of time that any individual public sector employee may allocate to trade union duties: an end to full-time union officials paid by the taxpayer, a practice that should have ended long ago.
The Trade Union Act 2016 gave ministers reserve powers regarding facility time. These powers extend to the publication of information; costs to public funds; the nature of work carried out; whether the work is relevant to the amount of facility time and any other matters considered relevant. In other words, Ministers don’t even need to change the law to tackle this issue.
This reform would signal a return to conservative economic policies where taxpayers are no longer the first port of call for every demand and where we restore our faith in the wisdom of people being left free to spend and invest more of their own money.
We should ask the state to do fewer things, but demand that the state does them better. The state is now overextended, and taxpayers know they are getting poor value for money. Conservatives should now seek to pare back the state and install tougher oversight of service delivery.
We should take a pragmatic approach to achieving Net Zero by 2050. By working at the pace of innovation rather than exceeding it, we can achieve Net Zero, but with a net profit to the country.
And we should restore our trust in free trade and competitive markets. We have learned over centuries that creating an economy which ensures that the potential of all our people can be tapped, where risk is encouraged and rewarded, and where the United Kingdom stands forcibly for global free trade, is the surest foundations for long term prosperity.
Our party understands that over-powerful unions are not good for the country, or for the principles of low taxes, limited government and economic liberty which we all support.
Saying no to taxpayers’ money being spent to subsidise trade union duties will save £100 million in efficiencies, perhaps more. A small step, but the first of many, to show that taxpayers will no longer be taken for a ride. And to signal our support for true conservative principles too.