Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill Commons Reasons 1.30pm Motion
A Moved by Lord Callanan That this House do not insist on its
Amendment 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason
1A. 1A: Because it is not appropriate to restrict application of
the Bill to England only. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of
State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan)
(Con) My Lords, with the leave of the House I will...Request free trial
Strikes (Minimum
Service Levels) Bill
Commons Reasons
1.30pm
Motion A
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1 to which the
Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A.
1A: Because it is not appropriate to restrict application of the
Bill to England only.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy
Security and Net Zero () (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I will also speak to Motion
B. I will speak to both the Motions to not insist on these
amendments and to resist Motions A1 and B1, which are amendments
in lieu tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and
the noble Lord, .
I am delighted to be in the Chamber again following the
consideration of this House’s amendments to the Bill in the other
place. Although there was a thorough debate of these amendments
and those we will look at next, they have been thoroughly
rejected by the other place, which has resolved against
amendments that would either delay implementation of the Bill or
prevent it from achieving any of its policy objectives.
I recognise that this is a topic that Members of both Houses are
passionate about and I agree with my colleague, the Minister for
Enterprise, Markets and Small Business, that we have had a robust
debate on it. However, I point out to the House that the other
place resolved against these amendments by significant majorities
of 61 and 55 respectively, which are significantly larger than
the majorities of 24 and 31 that amended the Bill in the first
place. That is also the case for the amendments that we will
discuss in the next group. The elected Chamber has therefore
given the Bill and the amendments made here its due consideration
and Members there have made the position of their House very
clear.
The House will be delighted to know that I do not intend to
repeat the debate and the arguments that we have heard on the
detail of the Bill here; the Government have already clearly set
out their intentions and perspective here, which are reflected in
the reasons for disagreement that have come back to us. The
Government’s position, and that of the elected Chamber, is clear
and I can confirm that the Government have no plans to concede on
these issues given the ongoing industrial disputes that show the
need for this Bill now more than ever. I therefore ask that noble
Lords respect the clear wishes of the other place and, while of
course I am always grateful for noble Lords’ insight, passion and
expertise on this matter, I hope that this House does not insist
on these amendments.
I will now address the amendments in lieu that have been tabled.
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, for his Motion
A1, which seeks to limit the application of this Bill to England
only, unless the Scottish Parliament and Senedd Cymru agree by
resolution for it to apply in those nations. The noble and
learned Lord submitted a similar amendment on Report and the
Government continue to resist this change for the reasons that I
set out then.
First, it is a statutory discretion for the employer as to
whether to issue a work notice, taking into account any other
legal requirements that the employer may have. However, more
fundamentally, the purpose and substance of the Bill is to
regulate employment rights and duties and industrial relations.
This is a reserved matter, so the consent of devolved Parliaments
for this legislation is rightly not required. To add in a
requirement for this, as the amendment seeks to do, would create
significant inconsistency with wider employment law and I suggest
that it would also disturb the careful balance of the UK’s
devolution settlement. We will of course, as we have throughout
the passage of the Bill, continue to seek to engage with the
devolved Governments as part of the development of minimum
service levels in those areas.
Finally, Motion B1, tabled by the noble Lord, , relates to additional
consultation requirements, assessment of impacts of the
legislation and parliamentary scrutiny. As has been made clear to
this House many times, sufficient checks and balances are already
built into the legislation before regulations can be made. Motion
B1 would delay implementation of minimum service levels for an
indefinite period and thus extend the disproportionate impact
that strikes can have on the public. I am afraid that the
Government simply cannot accept that.
This Government recognise the significant role that the UK
Parliament has played in scrutinising instruments. New Section
234F already ensures that the regulations will receive the
appropriate level of scrutiny by both Houses and are subject to
usual processes for consultation. I therefore urge this House not
to amend the Bill in such a way that would cause significant
delay to implementing minimum service levels, use up precious
parliamentary time to duplicate parliamentary procedures and set
some unhelpful precedents for future legislation. For all those
reasons, the Government resist Motions A1 and B1 and I hope that
noble Lords will agree not to press them. I beg to move.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Moved by
At end insert “and do propose Amendment 1B in lieu—
1B: Page 2, line 13, at end insert “but applies only to England
unless—(a) the Scottish Parliament resolves that it should apply
to Scotland from a date specified in the resolution, in which
case it so applies, and(b) Senedd Cymru resolves that it should
apply to Wales from a date specified in the resolution, in which
case it so applies.””
(CB)
My Lords, as this is the first occasion on which a devolution
issue has arisen this week, let me make one short observation
about the enormous contribution that made to devolution
and to using and utilising devolution within the context of the
United Kingdom. He can truly be regarded as a father of Welsh
devolution and he made an enormous contribution to strengthening
the position of Wales within the union.
I turn to my Motion. There are six brief points that I wish to
make—and they will be brief, I must emphasise. First, this is not
a reserved matter; I fundamentally disagree with the position
stated by the Government. If we look at the reality of this Bill,
it is not to do with employment rights; it is plainly to do with
services in Wales and Scotland. Indeed, it covers the most
important services that are devolved. The legislation therefore
did require a Sewel Motion and, as we know, that has not been
forthcoming.
Secondly, the fact that the Government are prepared to legislate
without observing the Sewel convention is, I regret to say,
another illustration of the ignoring of this convention and, more
generally, the Government’s action in ignoring conventions that
underpin our unwritten constitution, putting it in danger.
Actions of this kind are imperilling the union, which is the
bedrock of our constitution.
Thirdly, and more fundamentally, what is being done is
undemocratic. The Scottish Parliament and Senedd Cymru are
responsible and accountable for the very services for which this
legislation is being brought forward.
Fourthly, the extension of this Bill to Wales and Scotland is bad
for the people of Wales and Scotland. If we look at this as a
matter of practical reality, the UK Government are the Government
of England in respect of these services. They know nothing about
education, health, ambulances or the fire service in Wales, or
the relationships with staff and employees and how the services
run. It is structured differently in England from how it is
structured in Wales and Scotland.
Fifthly, I think that it is disingenuous again to say that
employers in Scotland and Wales can choose whether to give a work
notice. As the Minister in the other place made clear, it is not
in the Government’s view a free choice. Employers must consider
contractual public law and other legal duties that they have. If
this Government’s view is right—I do not agree with it—there is
the unspoken consequence of legal action against those who fail
in their duties. That is a real threat to the Governments in
Scotland and Wales and their ability to manage a service in a way
that is in the real interests of the people.
Sixthly, and finally, what this Bill does, in applying its
provisions to Scotland and Wales, is to take away power from
those who have a responsibility for the management of the
relationship and who are accountable to their electorate.
However, on this issue of devolution, the Government —as the
Minister made clear just now—have not moved, and plainly do not
intend to move, an iota. They maintain their characteristic
disdain for devolution. They continue to legislate to override
the devolution arrangements. I think that it can be said that
they believe with a singular superiority that they know better
what is right for Wales and Scotland than their democratically
elected Governments and Parliaments do. They seem not to care for
the long-term consequences of this persistent conduct.
For these reasons, although it is regrettable for our
constitution, union and democracy, unless others urge me to take
a different view, I see no point in seeking to divide the House
on issues on which the Government do not appear to wish to
engage. By using their majority in the other place, they can
impose their will on Scotland and Wales, which the Governments
and Parliaments of Scotland and Wales do not want.
(PC)
My Lords, I will intervene very briefly, as I did at earlier
stages of the Bill, having taken good note of the comments made
by the noble and learned Lord, .
I press on the Government the question of the definition of
reserved powers. This goes broader than this amendment and may be
something that needs to be looked at in another context, in its
own right. Under those circumstances, I accept the lead that has
been given by the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord
Thomas, and I hope the Government keep the issue alive in their
mind.
(LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, for
moving this amendment. I too will be brief. It is important to
restate the principles involved here. The Bill is one of a series
from this Government that trespass boldly—I would say
foolishly—on devolution. The United Kingdom Internal Market Act,
the Procurement Bill and the Retained EU Law (Revocation and
Reform) Bill do so distinctly, but this Bill takes it to another
level. The overwhelming majority of the list of services for
which it seeks to set minimum standards and take control are
devolved services, and the noble and learned Lord spoke about
this. Add to this the Government’s habit of ignoring the need for
legislative consent Motions and we are well on the way to a
constitutional crisis, which this Government seem openly to
invite.
Even now, the Government do not seem to have decided how to
develop and impose minimum service levels. Back in March, the
Constitution Committee expressed surprise at this in its report,
and it is significant that we are still at this point in June. It
is nonsense to imagine that the Government can impose minimum
service levels, in effect from a distance, on a service for which
they have no responsibility at any level, and, in the case of
Welsh-medium education, for which they do not even understand the
language in which the rules and standards are written.
As it stands, the Bill is unworkable and damaging. The noble and
learned Lord’s original amendment, which was agreed by the House,
sought to limit the scope of the Bill. The elegance of the new
amendment is that it would allow the devolved Administrations to
give agreement in the normal way.
In the different political climate of the past, in devolution as
it used to be practised and operate, there would be discussions,
co-operation, compromises and ultimately agreement between the UK
Government and the devolved Administrations. There would be
legislative consent Motions agreed before we agreed legislation
here. The norms have gone and that is a serious problem for our
future democracy.
1.45pm
(Con)
My Lords, can I make a simple point? This is nonsense, because
all the services are devolved, as has been said. I am not totally
in agreement with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, but
these are probably not reserved powers. Even if they were, how on
earth can a Secretary of State for Health in Elephant and Castle
or wherever he now lives make rules about hospitals in Glasgow,
fire engines in Edinburgh or education establishments in
Aberdeen? It just will not work. For that reason, I am very
dubious about this legislation. It does not apply to Northern
Ireland anyway. Putting it into a Bill is silly—that is the only
word for it—because we are being asked to pass legislation which
manifestly will do no good and will not work, and I am sorry that
the Government are pursuing it.
(Lab)
My Lords, it is a sad fact that this Bill so casually breaches
the Sewel convention, which exists to uphold democratic
accountability and provide for stable provision of public
services. Wherever you live in the United Kingdom, nothing should
interfere with those basic considerations. They dictate how
services are designed and delivered and who has a say over them,
whether that be in the hospital you are rushed to or the school
you take your children to. In overriding Parliaments in Wales and
Scotland, United Kingdom Ministers are treating those services as
incidental or of lesser significance and weakening the say of
patients and parents.
This is a problem not just for Wales and Scotland; it is a
problem for England and the entire United Kingdom when the
Government so regularly choose to sow confusion and division by
breaching a convention that exists to help prevent both. We
should not be in a position where a former Lord Chief Justice for
England and Wales is forced to spell this out in relation to so
many Bills. It is a measure of the Government’s consistent course
that the noble and learned Lord, , is put in such a
position. I hope that the points he made will be taken on board,
because the road that is going to be continued with is very
dangerous for the union. That is why it is so important that
Ministers listen.
I want to speak also to the other Motions in this group, which I
had hoped the noble Lord from the Lib Dem Benches would move
because I was intending to quote him. Nevertheless, on Motion B1,
on which we are to hear from the noble Lord, across this House
there is serious concern that, once again, Parliament is being
sidelined. It is a fundamental issue of accountability and
democracy. The Regulatory Policy Committee said that the impact
assessment for the Bill is “not fit for purpose” and
“makes use of assumptions in the analysis which are not supported
by evidence”.
Again, policy comes later and legislation first; it is
ridiculous. We should not have that sort of situation, especially
as it impinges on fundamental rights, particularly the right
which the Minister constantly says he is prepared to protect: the
right to strike.
Employers as well as unions share concerns that the provisions
are unworkable and have the opposite effect to that claimed by
the Government, will damage co-operation and will undermine
voluntary agreements that deliver minimum service levels, the
very thing that the Bill is meant to address. This is an
imposition and simply will not work. The Delegated Powers
Committee said that ministerial powers to set minimum service
levels through regulations and define what constitutes a relevant
service are inappropriate in the absence of convincing
explanation by Ministers. Throughout Report, we heard no
convincing arguments on this. The fact of the matter is that,
when we heard from Ministers responsible for relevant sections of
the Bill, they all said that voluntary arrangements are best and
that they work. But, when you undermine those voluntary
arrangements, you put the public—the thing that you want to try
to protect—at risk.
As the noble Lord, , said on Report—I will have to
quote his speech from then rather than today—
“This amendment seeks to bolster Parliament’s oversight. It would
require a consultation to be carried out and … reviewed by a
committee of each House of Parliament”,—[Official Report,
26/4/23; col. 1223.]
prior to regulations being made. This is absolutely essential if
we are to see good legislation rather than simply negative
narratives. Those consulted would include relevant unions,
employers and other interested parties across the United Kingdom.
This is vital to ensure consistency. I conclude by saying that I
hope the noble Lord, , will seek the support of the
whole House.
(LD)
My Lords, I was so enjoying the debate on Motion A1 that I failed
to stand up and speak to Motion B1 in my name. I apologise to the
noble Lord, Lord Collins, for not providing him with sufficient
up-to-date quotations, but he seemed to manage. We have spent so
much time on the Bill together that we probably know how each
other thinks.
We are in familiar territory, and indeed were too with Motion A1,
because this is a long-repeated trope of this Government. They
seek to override not only the devolved authorities but our own
Parliament here. Bill after Bill has measures that take powers
that should rightfully be vested in Parliament and lodge them
firmly with the Executive, with very little or negligible
recourse. This amendment seeks to regain that balance.
We have had similar discussions many times. I will not go over
all these, but I will remind the House very briefly why, in this
case, it is very important. The centrepiece of this legislation
is a system of predetermined minimum service levels which may be
used by employers to determine the minimum manning levels in the
event of a strike. If a strike is called, specific work orders
have to be or may be issued, requiring named individuals to
ignore the strike and go to work. If they do not, as the Bill
stands, they can be sacked.
The scale of the minimum service level is key. The nearer it is
to 100% of normal service, the smaller the number of people who
can legitimately and legally strike becomes—to the point that it
becomes almost zero, or zero, and strikes are banned. This is not
an abstract argument: if you look at certain areas of emergency
care or issues such as rail track signalling, it is clear that a
very high level of presenteeism will be required to run those
services. In effect, those people on that work order will
therefore have their right to strike banned. Speaking as a
Liberal, I say that this is a libertarian issue that we find very
important.
The setting of these minimum services levels is a vital part of
how this Bill will operate. As the Minister has said, some
non-binding consultation is under way but as things stand, to all
intents and purposes the scale of the minimum service levels is
the Secretary of State’s decision and theirs alone. We find that
unacceptable.
The Commons declined our last amendment on the grounds that there
is “adequate consultation”. We think that there is not and would
like to ask the Commons to revisit that process. This amendment
would require that consultation takes place and is reviewed by a
committee of each House of Parliament prior to regulations being
made. That consultation would be more formal and set out in some
detail compared to the informal and ad hoc nature of the
consultation that is going on. As we heard from the noble Lord,
Lord Collins, when he was quoting me, those consulted will
include the relevant unions, employers and other interested
parties and would include an assessment of the impact on the
rights of those workers.
The Minister talked about time and how this would wrap up the
process into indefinite time. I remind your Lordships that the
original Bill from which this Bill is generated started about a
year ago. That Bill of course referred to what was in the
Conservative Party manifesto, unlike this one, which has been
broadened way beyond the scope of what was in the manifesto. The
Government have shown themselves very adept at setting up time
for such things to be debated, yesterday being an example. I am
sure that time is not the issue—“won’t” rather than “can’t” is
what we are dealing with here.
In short, we seek through this Motion to regularise the
consultation process and give a mandatory role for Parliament
that is far more than we see. With most Governments, this might
not be controversial but with this one there has been a pattern
and it is systematic, so here we seek to reassert the role of
parliamentary democracy. My noble friend talked about there being
the potential for a constitutional crisis around the treatment of
government and the devolved authorities, I think we are already
heading in the same direction with the treatment by this
Government of our Parliament.
(Con)
My Lords, I thank all those who have contributed. The House will
be pleased to know that I do not intend to detain noble Lords for
very long. We have debated these matters extensively on a number
of occasions in a very rigorous manner, so I do not intend to
repeat all the arguments. But, let me just say very briefly,
particularly in response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord
Thomas, that we are certain that the minimum service levels are a
reserved matter. They are reserved because they obviously apply
only when there are strikes, which fall within employment rights
and industrial relations. This is clearly a reserved matter under
each of the devolution settlements for Scotland and Wales. Put
another way, the Bill amends the Trade Union and Labour Relations
(Consolidation) Act 1992, the subject of which is specifically
reserved under each of these settlements. I always hesitate to
disagree with distinguished lawyers on matters of law but I am
afraid that we just have a different opinion on this.
I addressed the points from the noble Lord, , in my opening remarks and will
not repeat that. I acknowledge all those who have spoken. I
understand the strength of opinion in the House on this but once
again I point the House towards the other place—the elected
place—and the clear will it has expressed on these matters. I
urge the House not to prolong this matter unnecessarily and,
while it looks as though we are going to vote on the Motion from
the noble Lord, , I am grateful that the noble and
learned Lord, Lord Thomas, indicated that he would not be
dividing the House.
(CB)
I beg the House’s leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion A1 withdrawn.
Motion A agreed.
2.00pm
Motion B
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2 to which the
Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2A.
2A: Because the Bill already contains adequate consultation
requirements.
Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)
Moved by
At end insert “and do propose Amendment 2B in lieu—
2B: Page 3, line 31, at end insert—
“(5) Minimum service regulations may only be made if—(a) the
Secretary of State has published draft regulations;(b) the
Secretary of State has conducted an impact assessment of the
effect of the draft regulations on the services to which the
draft regulations relate, addressing, in particular, the
effect—(i) on the general public,(ii) on the conduct of these
services, and(iii) on the conduct and effectiveness of the
exercise of the right to strike in those services;(c) the
Secretary of State has conducted a consultation with the
representatives of trade unions, employers and any other
interested party on the draft regulations and on the effect of
the draft regulations on the services to which they relate, and
in particular on the effect—(i) on the general public,(ii) on the
conduct of those services, and(iii) on the conduct and
effectiveness of the exercise of the right to strike in those
services,and has laid before Parliament a report on that
consultation;
(d) the Secretary of State has placed before a Joint Committee of
both Houses of Parliament convened for the purpose of reviewing
them the impact assessment under paragraph (b) and the report
under paragraph (c) and the Joint Committee’s review has been
published in a report to Parliament.””
(LD)
My Lords, having heard the arguments many times, I would still
like to test the will of the House.
[Division 3
Division on Motion B1
Content
182
Not Content
150
Motion B1 agreed.
Held on 8 June 2023 at
2.00pm](/Lords/2023-06-08/division/9A50BDBF-CEDB-45EF-B205-6A232D4DFD03/LordsChamber?outputType=Names)
2.11pm
Motion C
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 4 to which the
Commons have disagreed for their Reason 4A.
4A: Because in order for the legislation to be effective, it is
necessary for there to be consequences for an employee who fails
to comply with a work notice.
(Con)
My Lords, in moving Motion C, with the leave of the House, I will
also speak to Motion D.
Motions C and D in my name cover this House’s Amendments 4, 5, 6
and 7, which removed key parts of the legislation that are
necessary to make it effective and to ensure that minimum service
levels can in fact be achieved. It is therefore unsurprising that
the other place resolved against these amendments with, I remind
the House once again, larger majorities than those that amended
the Bill in this House. The Government continue to maintain that
the approach taken by this legislation is fair and proportionate.
To achieve a minimum service level, employers, workers and trade
unions all have their part to play.
Motion C and the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness,
Lady O’Grady, proposed in lieu of Lords Amendment 4, deal with
the consequences of non-compliance with a work notice. As I have
said previously, the approach taken by this legislation is fair
and proportionate. It enables employers to manage instances of
non-compliance in exactly the same way that they would with any
other unauthorised absence.
As I have made clear on a number of occasions, an employee losing
their automatic protection from unfair dismissal for industrial
action, if they participated in a strike contrary to a work
notice, does not automatically mean that they will be
dismissed—just as failing to attend work without a valid reason
normally does not mean that they will be dismissed. It simply
enables employers to pursue disciplinary action if they believe
it is appropriate, but it is ultimately at the discretion of the
employer. I believe that this is the right approach to ensure
that minimum service levels will be achieved, while protecting
workers in a way that aligns with existing legislation. On that
basis, I resist the amendment proposed in lieu.
On Motion D, which covers the role of trade unions, it appears in
the amendment proposed in lieu of Lords Amendment 5 that the
noble Lord, Lord Collins, accepts that there may be a role for
unions to play in ensuring that minimum service levels can be
met. However, I strongly believe that it cannot be at the
discretion of a trade union as to whether and how it advises and
encourages its members to comply with work notices. There must be
some consequences if they do not take reasonable steps. On that
basis, the Government therefore resist this amendment.
I have noted the feedback from the House, including in the Joint
Committee on Human Rights. The Government are willing to consider
whether there may be a case for providing further details on what
“reasonable steps” are and what it means for trade unions. What
we cannot do, however, is accept an amendment such as the one
proposed. Without a responsibility for unions to ensure that
their members comply, and without any incentives for employees to
attend work on a strike day when they have been identified in a
work notice, the effectiveness of this legislation is, I am
afraid, severely undermined—and I suspect that is the purpose of
the amendments.
I cannot therefore accept a continuation of the risk to lives and
livelihoods as a result of the disproportionate impact of these
strikes. I therefore ask that the House supports Motions C and D
to address this, and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady
O’Grady, and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, will not move their
respective Motions C1 and D1. I beg to move.
2.15pm
Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C)
Moved by
At end insert “and do propose Amendment 4B in lieu—
4B: Page 4, line 40, at end insert—
“234CA Protection of employees
(1) A person is not subject to a work notice if they have not
received a copy of it in accordance with the time limits
specified in section 234C(3). (2) It is for the employer to prove
that the work notice was received in conformity with subsection
(1).(3) An employee may not be dismissed or subjected to any
detriment for failing to comply with a work notice and any such
dismissal shall be treated as a dismissal to which section 152
applies and any such detriment shall be treated as a detriment to
which section 146 applies.(4) A work notice does not place a
contractual obligation on an employee to comply with it.””
(Lab)
My Lords, this Motion seeks to uphold a principle long
established in British law: that workers on strike are protected
against the sack. Noble Lords will recall the concerns of the
noble and learned Lord, , at Second Reading. He said
that
“this is a troublesome piece of legislation. It asks us all a
very simple question: when does the right to withhold your labour
… cease to be a right? It answers that question too … the right
ceases when, following a ministerial decree, your employer can
oblige you to work, and if you fail to do so you can lose your
job”.—[Official Report, 21/2/23; col. 1568.]
Not since the Second World War have a UK Government taken power
to facilitate the requisitioning of people to work against their
will. This would make the UK an outlier in Europe and flies in
the face of human rights, equality and ILO conventions as
reaffirmed by the Government in the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation
Agreement. The Government have succeeded in uniting employers,
unions, the devolved nations and service users against them. In
the interests of transparency, I repeat that Labour is 100%
committed to repealing this bad Bill.
My Motion returns to the core concern: that striking workers
selected by the employer they are striking against can be forced
to work or face the sack. Remember, this legislation would
unilaterally change the employment contracts of potentially
millions of people—and all through secondary legislation with no
proper parliamentary scrutiny or accountability. Minimum service
levels determined by a Secretary of State could be set up to 100%
and require staffing levels to match. The union may have jumped
every hurdle to secure a lawful ballot and the worker may have
democratically voted to strike, but protection against the sack
will be whipped away by an employer simply putting their name on
a piece of paper. The worker may not even have received the work
notice; there is no obligation on the employer to make sure that
they do. Their automatic protection against dismissal will be
annulled. This is manifestly unjust.
Remember, too, that minimum service levels apply only to strike
days. For the rest of the year, a Secretary of State can close
fire stations, see rail services fail, see asylum seeker backlogs
grow, increase class sizes and let NHS waiting lists—shamefully
now at 7.3 million—soar. I have listened carefully to the debates
in both Houses. Ministers are trying to sweep the issue of
sackings under the carpet.
On 10 January, the then Business Secretary said it was wrong to frighten
people about their jobs. The Minister has said on many occasions,
including on 21 February:
“This legislation is not about sacking workers”.—[Official
Report, 21/2/23; col. 1563.]
On 22 May, the Under-Secretary of State told the House of Commons
that
“nobody will be sacked as a result of the legislation”.—[Official
Report, Commons, 22/5/23; col. 103.]
The official reason from the Commons for rejecting my original
amendment is that
“for the legislation to be effective, it is necessary for there
to be consequences for an employee who fails to comply with the
work notice”.
So the consequence of exercising the human right to withdraw your
labour is the removal of protection against unfair dismissal. In
a free society, that is chilling. The very workers Ministers
thanked for their heroism during the pandemic and stood on
doorsteps to clap can be punished for striking with instant
dismissal.
Key workers have already sacrificed so much for the rest of us.
Unless the Government accept this amendment, Ministers now expect
them to sacrifice their right to strike, or pay the price with
their livelihoods. I sincerely hope that my amendment will be
supported in this House and that it will give the opportunity for
the Government to listen and think again. I beg to move.
(Con)
Noble Lords will not be surprised that I agree with the amendment
as tabled. I have been a student of history for many years. You
do not requisition labour except in times of dire national
emergency. We did not even requisition it at the outbreak of the
Second World War. Conscription did not come in until half way
through the First World War. To deprive a person of the liberty
to decide whether they go to work is something that is done
carefully and very seldom. I think this goes far too far. It is
an imposition not only on the workforce but on the trade union
movement.
We spend a lot of time saying how much we want to build a
prosperous Britain, but I remind noble Lords that 60%-plus of
trade unionists have a higher education degree or more. We are
not dealing with the trade union movement of the 1920s. We are
now dealing with a trade union movement on which Britain depends
for its prosperity. The people who look after the skies, fly the
planes, run the National Air Traffic Service, keep our nuclear
power plants going and manage our railways are highly skilled
people who are in trade unions because they see a trade union as
being a way of defending their interests.
Sadly for the party opposite, some one-third of them do not see
that party as being the one that will deliver their political
future. But that is a good thing, because I do not believe that
we want sectarian trade unions. I want people to join trade
unions because they want to better the welfare of their country.
Taking steps such as this will just alienate people. They are not
the sort of steps where people are going to be happy and say, “Oh
it’s a really good thing”.
As for minimum service levels, I live in Cambridge. We seem to
have had lots of strikes this year, but there has never been one
that prevented me getting here, because many of the unions have a
harder job keeping their people out on strike than getting the
original ballot to put them on strike because, when push comes to
shove, a lot of them do not wish to lose the money that they
lose. So I think we need to be realistic about this.
All we are doing here is heating up the atmosphere and making it
harder for the reasonable people in trade unions to make this
country work. Every trade union has within it a group of people
who hate strikes; they regard them as being the last thing they
want, because it is a sign of failure. So I say to the Government
as a whole—because it is not just this Bill—for goodness’ sake,
make peace with organised labour; it is fundamentally on your
side. It is much more on your side than some of the people who
are contributing to the political parties of this nation and
doing so for reasons which I would not say are particularly
honourable. So please, Minister, send this back to the Commons
and look for a compromise. I certainly will not vote for it to go
again because I believe that the Commons must, in the end, have
its primacy; that is why we have it. But it is quite legitimate
to send this back and I ask that, when it gets there, our
Ministers on our Front Bench say, “Look, there are very genuine
reasons for this. Please try and give us some concessions”.
(Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will say very briefly I have no doubt that the
Government do not want to lead to the sacking of workers through
this Bill. However, when the Minister seeks to reassure us with
the conclusion that it will be left to the discretion of the
employer, I say to the Minister that those are dread words for
anyone who is an employee of said employer if you are in dispute.
As this Bill is about enforcing consequences, nay punishment, I
do not care whether the Minister intends that people are sacked,
I simply point out that that could be the consequence even
against what the Government want. I hope the Government will
reconsider this and bear in mind that it is to do with freedom,
rather than coercing people: the freedom to go on strike and
withdraw your labour, which is something that all sides of this
House should support.
(Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment D1 and address some of the
issues the Minister mentioned. Of course, when I spoke in the
earlier debate, I focused on the fact that, when it comes to
minimum service levels during disputes, what works are voluntary
agreements—and that is across the world. I repeat that what this
Bill does is undermine co-operation and voluntary agreements.
The fact is that this Bill will place trade unions in the
unacceptable position of being asked to ensure that members who
vote for industrial action do not take part in that action. It is
a complete contradiction of their role. My amendment would remove
the obligation on the union to take undefined reasonable steps.
The Minister referred to the report from the Joint Committee on
Human Rights, and I appreciate the Minister attempting to meet me
and my noble friend to discuss what “reasonable steps” might
mean. Sadly, the two-page government amendment that he gave me
placed huge burdens on employers and unions—the complete opposite
of what this Government say they want to achieve.
The simple fact, as I mentioned on Report, is that if a union is
deemed not to have followed the legislation, it could mean that
the strike is regarded as unlawful and that protections such as
automatic unfair dismissal protection could be removed from all
striking workers, including those not named in the notices.
Again, if a union is deemed not to have followed the legislation,
the strike could be regarded as unlawful, and that then opens up
all kinds of consequences.
2.30pm
The Minister says that the Bill must have consequences. The real
consequence is to undermine the democratic right to strike and
remove the immunities that trade unions have historically had to
ensure that that right can be exercised. That is why this
amendment is so important.
I agree that it is not usual to keep sending things back to the
Commons, but it is important that MPs have the opportunity to
consider what the human rights committee said: how can you have a
law that does not set out the thing that unions are required to
do? If this law is passed, unions will not know what they are
required to do. This is absolutely outrageous.
The fundamental issue, and what makes this so much worse, is that
lawful disputes must be organised in accordance with trade union
legislation, which requires proper notice and information going
to the employer—steps that no other European country requires
their unions to take, but we do. If, after all those processes, a
union fails to deliver a work notice after that legal strike has
been approved, it will then jeopardise the whole dispute. It is
simply not right and I intend to seek the opinion of the House on
Motion D1.
(LD)
My Lords, Motions C1 and D1, as so excellently set out by the
noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, and the noble Lord, Lord Collins,
seek to add protections into the Bill for workers and unions. The
Bill as drafted, as we have heard, could have serious
consequences for employees and unions that fail to comply with
work notices imposing minimum service levels.
To pick up the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made very
well, it does not matter what Secretaries of State or Ministers
have said once this law is out there. We move from the situation
we have at the moment, under existing industrial action
legislation, where those on an official lawful strike are
automatically deemed to be unfairly dismissed if they are sacked
for taking part. The Bill would disapply this protection for
those named by an employer on a work notice. This is a gross
infringement of individuals’ freedom and that is why these
Benches support Motions C1 and D1.
(Con)
My Lords, we have once again had a reasonably full debate on
these matters, so the House will be relieved that I will keep my
response brief. We have largely covered many of these points
before, so we do not need to repeat them.
Briefly, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, I
restate the view of the Government that this Bill is not about
sacking workers, and nor is it about forced labour, which is a
frankly ridiculous exaggeration. It simply equips employers to
manage instances of non-compliance with a work notice. That is
exactly the same situation as any other strike action that is not
protected under existing legislation.
To be clear, under the original drafting of the Bill an employee
who went on strike contrary to being named on a work notice would
lose their automatic protection from unfair dismissal only
provided that they were notified in advance of the requirement
for them to work and that they must comply with the work notice.
We expect employees to be told if they are required to work and,
in that case, what work they are required to do. In such
circumstances, it is reasonable for an employer to consider, if
it wishes, disciplinary action if an individual none the less
chooses to continue to strike, thereby putting the public at
risk. It is at the discretion of the employer as to what, if any,
disciplinary action is taken in these circumstances. In response
to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, the Government expect employers
to be fair and reasonable and to take this action only where it
is necessary.
Unions must have a role to play in minimum service levels,
otherwise they would be able to induce people to strike as normal
and take steps to undermine minimum service levels being
achieved. That directly counters the objectives of this policy.
The consequences of a union failing to play that role are
consistent with any other failures by a union to comply with any
other existing law.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, as I said in my
opening speech the Government are willing to consider whether
there is a case to provide further detail on what reasonable
steps are, what this means for trade unions and how they might
fulfil those obligations.
I stress to this House that Motions C1 and D1 would continue the
prolonged and disproportionate impact of strike action on the
public. With this legislation, the Government are taking a fair
and proportionate approach to balance the fundamental ability of
unions and their members to strike, on the one hand, with the
need for the wider public to access some of the key services that
they expect and pay for, on the other. I therefore hope that the
noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady,
do not push their amendments. I commend the government Motions to
the House.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
I wish to test the opinion of the House.
[Division 4
Division on Motion C1
Content
180
Not Content
150
Motion C1 agreed.
Held on 8 June 2023 at
2.46pm](/Lords/2023-06-08/division/D4A4DF80-8EA3-489B-A961-79D4BAE25026/LordsChamber?outputType=Names)
2.46pm
Motion D
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 5, 6 and 7, to
which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 5A, 6A and
7A.
5A: Because the amendment would remove the requirement for a
union to take reasonable steps to ensure that members comply with
a work notice in order for strike action to be protected, and
this would reduce the impact of the legislation.
6A: Because it is consequential on Lords Amendment 5 to which the
Commons disagree.
7A: Because it is consequential on Lords Amendment 5 to which the
Commons disagree.
Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D)
Moved by
At end insert “and do propose Amendment 5B as an amendment in
lieu and Amendments 5C and 5D as consequential amendments—
5B: Page 5, line 11, leave out from “strike,” to end of line 22
and insert “it is a matter for the union to determine what
advice, if any, it gives to members of the union who are
identified in the work notice, and any actions or inactions of
the union in this regard shall not result in any tortious
liability or the loss of any protection to which the union would
otherwise be entitled pursuant to section 219.”
5C: Page 6, leave out lines 19 and 20
5D: Page 7, line 28, leave out “, 234A and 234E” and insert
“and234A””
[Division 5
Division on Motion D1
Content
179
Not Content
148
Motion D1 agreed.
Held on 8 June 2023 at
2.47pm](/Lords/2023-06-08/division/BC63298E-EC1B-4DB6-B13A-FD232EA5D599/LordsChamber?outputType=Names)
|
