Angela Rayner responds to the Regulatory Policy Committee's red-rating of the Government's Minimum Service Levels Bill

Angela Rayner MP, Labour's Deputy Leader and Shadow Secretary of State for the Future of Work, responding to the Regulatory Policy Committee's red-rating of the Government's Minimum Service Levels Bill, said:

"This is a damning judgement by independent experts on the Government's 'Sacking Nurses' Bill.

"Tory ministers have failed utterly to do due diligence on this shoddy, unworkable policy, breaking their own rules and failing to provide evidence for their claims. Clearly the Government is trying to hide the severe and disproportionate impacts its legislation will have on small businesses.

"It's little wonder they're trying to rush this legislation through Parliament because not one bit of it stands up to scrutiny. This is a complete dereliction of ministerial duty."

Ends

Notes to editors:

Regulatory Policy Committee opinion on BEIS' Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill IA - 21 February, Gov.uk

Key lines from the RPC's assessment

RPC rating:

Rating: not fit for purpose [red]. The IA is not fit for purpose.

The Government has not considered all impacts of its policy and has not backed up its assumptions with evidence:

The Department did not follow its own policy for the timely submission of an IA to the RPC for scrutiny to enable Parliament to consider both the IA and the RPC’s opinion.

Cost-benefit analysis: Weak. The Department makes use of assumptions in the analysis which are not supported by evidence.

It is not clear that the IA considers all of the impacts of the new requirements that will be introduced via the Bill. For example, the IA notes the introduction of work notices, but it does not consider these impacts in any detail. The Department must ensure that all direct business impacts (including those to trade unions) have been clearly identified and discussed…

The IA has not clearly established a counterfactual supported by evidence, outlining what is expected to occur in the absence of legislation being introduced… The Department assumes a baseline service level of provision of zero. This is a conservative position to take, given that voluntary provision of service in sectors is uncertain. The Department must ensure that the evidence, approach and assumptions made in establishing the counterfactual position, from which impacts of the proposals are assessed, are clearly explained, justified and consistent.

The Government has not properly considered the likely impact on small and medium size businesses, or followed its own rules with an exemption: 

The IA initially states that the Department’s view is that SMBs would not be disproportionately impacted, however a clear case for this position is not made within the IA. The Department acknowledges that SMBs would likely not have the same capability to bear the familiarisation costs as larger businesses to meet this requirement.

The Bill does not exempt SMBs, and the IA does not justify this choice. Given that the IA does not clearly establish the size of the SMB presence in affected sectors, the Department cannot fairly assess whether the policy would be undermined if SMBs were exempted. If the case for not exempting SMBs was there, the IA must also consider what mitigation for disproportionately impacted SMBs there could be.

As with the consideration of exemption for SMBs discussed above, the IA should have discussed whether medium-sized businesses (MSBs) should also be exempt. This would align with the principle behind the Government’s announcement that, from October 2022, that departments should first look to exempt MSBs from new regulation.

The Government has not properly assessed how the Bill could make strikes worse: 

The IA does not consider or discuss the rationale behind workers’ decisions to strike, or consider the actions short of striking that may be taken. The IA could have considered this, in particular as the IA notes the risk of further (and even increased) strike action.

The Department includes a sizeable section in the IA setting out potential risks arising from the policy, which includes the acknowledgement that the intervention may lead to further strike action. 

The international examples cited by ministers are not properly justified: 

The IA could have been improved with a discussion of the respective levels at which [other’ countries have set MSLs, or the effectiveness of these MSL policies in counteracting the potential negative effects of the under-provision of key services.

Other options were not properly considered: 

The IA initially considers a range of options, including a non-regulatory option seeking the introduction of voluntary MSLs, however the IA only discusses the preferred option in any detail, providing only a summary sheet for this option. The IA could have attempted to provide a more complete assessment of the impacts of all options considered, to provide an illustration of their respective merits.

The Government makes assumptions without proper evidence: 

It is not always clear what evidence has been used, or the continued relevance of that which is used (e.g., some sources are almost a decade old), to inform the content of the IA. The Department should have provided a clearer description of what evidence has been used to support the analysis and discussion in the IA and explain why this evidence is the most recent and most appropriate to be used informing the assessment of impacts.

The IA makes a number of assumptions, both in its consideration of the potential impacts of the Bill, and in attempting to quantify its impacts. For example… the Department does not justify important assumptions regarding the level of provision established in the counterfactual. The Department needs to support all assumptions made with appropriate evidence and analysis or further explanation.