The deduction of Trade Union subscriptions from payroll through check-off is a matter delegated to individual Departments in the Civil Service.

What his policy is on the deduction of trade union subscriptions from payroll in the Civil Service.

As I say, it is a matter for Departments to decide for themselves. A number of trade unions take the view that it is much better to have a direct relationship with their members than have it intermediated through the employer—it is a rather more modern way to run things.

The civil service has used check-off for the last 30 years. Indeed, large companies such as BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce use it as a very efficient way to deduct trade union subscriptions from salary. Is this not just another ideological attack? Removing check-off from the civil service payroll will cost many times more than running the current system for hundreds of years.

My hon. Friend has been a doughty campaigner for the use of facility time to be much better regulated. We inherited from Labour a position in which very large amounts of public money were being spent on subsidising 250 full-time officials in the civil service alone, let alone in the wider public sector. I am happy to tell her that we have got that under control.

Does my right hon. Friend think that it is fair on hard-working British taxpayers that their money is used to subsidise the administration of trade unions, rather than that cash going to front-line services?

I am happy to bring the hon. Gentleman up to date. The DWP has subsequently said that that was a speculative and inaccurate figure—

The Minister says that this is a matter for individual Departments, but the private secretary in his Department has written round to every Department in Whitehall asking them to review check-off. We know that the Government, for political reasons, want to scrap check-off, and I have seen a copy of an official letter from the Department for Work and Pensions, which was subsequently withheld by Ministers, that states:

“The department has concluded that the figure for the financial implications of ending check-off should be disclosed…The information held states: ‘We estimate that implementation costs could exceed one million pounds’.”

In the light of that revelation, will he agree, in the interests of transparency, to publish the full financial implications of this misguided policy?

The Minister says that this is a matter for individual Departments, but the private secretary in his Department has written round to every Department in Whitehall asking them to review check-off. We know that the Government, for political reasons, want to scrap check-off, and I have seen a copy of an official letter from the Department for Work and Pensions, which was subsequently withheld by Ministers, that states:

“The department has concluded that the figure for the financial implications of ending check-off should be disclosed…The information held states: ‘We estimate that implementation costs could exceed one million pounds’.”

In the light of that revelation, will he agree, in the interests of transparency, to publish the full financial implications of this misguided policy?

The deduction of trade union subscriptions from payroll through check-off is a matter delegated to Departments in the civil service.

Ministers in this Department believe that the current subsidies and support given to the trade unions by the public sector are poor value for money and represent an unhealthy relationship between the state and voluntary sector.

Trade union activities and campaigning in local government, and indeed our Department, should be funded by members' subscriptions, not bankrolled by the taxpayer. Greater freedom from state dependency will help ensure that trade union bosses better reflect and respond to the wishes and views of the grassroots members who pay the bill.

The following tables give a breakdown of the assorted costs to taxpayers.

For the five years requested, the estimated spend on facility time in the Audit Commission is £116,984 per year. However, the majority of facility time staff users

have now left the organisation and the residual body no longer has the time sheet records to allow a more detailed analysis.

The Local Government Ombudsman and the Housing Ombudsman do not collect comparative facility time or cost information on their trade union representatives.

The following Arms Length Bodies do not have any trade union representatives: Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre, Leasehold Advisory Service, the West Northamptonshire Development Corporation, Building Regulations Advisory Committee and the Architects Registration Board.

Figures are not held for the quangos which we have abolished, such as the Government Offices for the Regions, Tenant Services Authority and Standards Board. However, taxpayer savings will have been made as a consequence of their abolition.

Hospitality by facility time users

This is a nil return, based on information centrally held.

Further cost savings

Following the Cabinet Office review of the use of facility time and facilities in the civil service, the Department for Communities and Local Government has made further changes to its facility time arrangements. With effect from 1 April 2013, the overall facility allocation has been reduced to 0.04% of the pay bill and all trade union representatives will spend the majority of their time in civil service roles.

The number of full-time trade union representatives has reduced to zero. We have also taken broader steps to prevent what Ministers in this Department consider to be inappropriate use of departmental facilities for campaigning purposes.

The Department has also strongly encouraged its Arms Length Bodies to make changes to their facility time arrangements and has started to collect facility time cost information from the 1 April 2013. The following table shows the estimated costs for 2013-14.

Check-off arrangements

The cost to the core Department of administering the debits from payroll for ‘check-off are currently included in the total overall cost of the managed payroll service we receive from Logica and are not billed as a separate cost. The additional cost of transferring credits to the three recognised unions currently amounts to £329 per annum. In this context, given the total cost will be higher and bundled within the managed payroll service, there is a hidden subsidy to the unions. These figures do not include our Arms Length Bodies.

As indicated above, this is not an issue of money, but also of the broader principle of taxpayer-funding of trade unions. Ministers in this Department do not believe it is appropriate for public resources to be used to support the collection and administration of membership subscriptions and believe is an outdated and unnecessary 20th Century practice. It is also unsatisfactory that trade unions like PCS collect the political levy via check-off, but make no attempt to inform would-be members that the political levy is optional or even mention the right to opt out on their membership forms. It is the view of Ministers in this Department that this is a misleading and dubious marketing practice through omission.

Despite a legal challenge by PCS, based on a technical point of law stemming from the wording of the staff handbook introduced during the last Labour Government, it remains Ministers' intention to take the necessary steps to end the check-off arrangements.

In relation to the costs from that legal case, I would also observe that PCS has a larger unpaid bill from two years ago for costs awarded to the Government after PCS's failed judicial review of the Civil Service Compensation scheme reforms.

Conclusion

In total, we estimate that the ongoing savings to facility time may in due course represent up to £400,000 a year of taxpayers' money, as well as delivering a clearer and healthier separation between trade unions and the state.

[holding answer 14 May 2013]: The Prime Minister's Office is an integral part of the Cabinet Office.

We do not hold total costs centrally on overall spend across my Department on periodicals and newspapers.

However, further to my answer of 6 November 2012, Official Report, column 575W, which detailed payments through my Department’s central contract to our primary newspaper supplier, my Department spent a total of £8,000 in 2011-12 on payments through our central contract and a further £52,000 over the same period with our main supplier via other channels.