Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill Commons Reasons
Correspondence from the Senedd published. 3.21pm Motion A Moved by
Lord Callanan That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2B to
which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2C. 2C: Because
the Bill already contains adequate provision for consultation and
parliamentary control of regulations made under it. The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Energy...Request free trial
Strikes (Minimum
Service Levels) Bill
Commons Reasons
Correspondence from the Senedd published.
3.21pm
Motion A
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2B to which the
Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2C.
2C: Because the Bill already contains adequate provision for
consultation and parliamentary control of regulations made under
it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy
Security and Net Zero () (Con)
My Lords, in moving Motion A, with the leave of the House, I will
speak also to Motions B and C.
The Bill returns to us once again from the other place. That
House has been consistently very clear, for the second time now,
that it is firm in its position on the remaining three
amendments. When we were last here, this House asked the Commons
to reconsider its position and, unsurprisingly, it has reached
exactly the same conclusion as it did previously. Indeed, it has
done so by greater majorities than before and, in some cases, by
the greatest majority that we have so far seen on the Bill.
Therefore, I propose Motions to accept the Commons position on
the Bill and give way to the elected House.
We have discussed these amendments in detail throughout the
Bill’s passage. The Government’s position remains that they
cannot accept amendments which would delay the implementation of
this much-needed legislation or, indeed, render it entirely
inoperable. The Government have been clear in both Houses that
they are willing to consider providing clarity on the nature of
the “reasonable steps” which unions are expected to take to
fulfil their obligations under the Bill. This is a significant
issue, which I know a number of Members of this House have raised
throughout the Bill’s passage. However, as yet, we have not had
any indication that this would be widely supported.
Amendment 2D significantly expands on previous versions of Lords
Amendment 2 in a way that will not, I believe, add to the
effectiveness of the regulations. The Government have already
undertaken public consultations on their intentions to bring
forward minimum service levels for passenger rail services,
ambulance services and fire and rescue services. We will bring
forward regulations for approval in Parliament in due course.
This is an entirely reasonable legislative approach enabling the
Government to consider all relevant factors, including our
international obligations, while at the same time ensuring that
minimum service levels are introduced in good time.
I remind the House that, as the Government have made clear
through the passage of the Bill, employees will lose their
automatic unfair dismissal protection for going on strike in
contravention of a work notice only if they receive notification
from the employer that they are required to work under a work
notice and notification of the work that they must carry out.
Finally, impact assessments will be published alongside the final
regulations.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, will acknowledge
that the effect of his amendment would be to delay significantly
the implementation of minimum service levels, given the
additional and lengthy consultation and parliamentary
requirements; I heavily suspect that that is probably its
purpose. On behalf of the Government, I must therefore resist it
today. I hope that the noble Lord will not feel the need to put
it to a vote.
This amendment remains unnecessary and would delay the
implementation of this vital legislation, which is designed to
protect the public from the disproportionate impacts of the
ongoing strike action. I therefore ask noble Lords to support the
Government’s Motions on the Order Paper today. I beg to move.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Moved by
At end insert “and do propose Amendment 2D in lieu—
2D: 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 consulted the International Labour
Organisation and given due consideration to such advice as it has
proffered;
(c) 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;
(iii) on the conduct and effectiveness of the exercise of the
right to strike in those services;
(d) 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 matters to
be addressed by the impact assessment and, in particular, on
whether the draft regulations should or do sufficiently provide,
so far as possible under section 234F(2)(a), for protection of
workers who do not receive a work notice or fail to comply with
it, and for the identification of the “reasonable steps” which a
union must not fail to take under section 234E and those which it
is reasonable for it not to take;
(e) the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a report on
any advice proffered under paragraph (b) and the consultation
under paragraph (d);
(f) 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 (c) and the report
under paragraph (e) and the Joint Committee’s review has been
published in a report to Parliament.””
(Lab)
My Lords, I am proposing an unusual but reasonable step in
relation to this Bill. As noble Lords have heard in previous
debates on the Bill, Labour is committed to repealing what we
believe to be a very bad piece of legislation. Employers, unions,
the devolved nations and service users have expressed opinions
against the Bill. However, my argument today will focus on the
consequences of this piece of legislation, which have not, I
believe, been thought through or properly addressed either by the
Government or in the impact assessments.
The consequence of exercising the human right to withdraw labour
is now, as the Minister confirmed, the removal of protection
against unfair dismissal. The consequence for a union complying
with rigorous balloting requirements for an official dispute is
now to lose its protection against action in tort. We sort of
knew that this was coming because the Joint Committee on Human
Rights concluded that the penalties for employees and unions who
do not meet the Bill’s requirements are severe. It stated that
they
“amount to a disproportionate interference with Article 11”
rights of the ECHR on assembly and association. Of course, as the
committee said, the Minister responded on those human rights by
saying that the Government rejected the committee’s findings and
recommendations. They felt that this piece of legislation was
compliant.
Since noble Lords considered this piece of legislation, last
month, the ILO’s Conference Committee on the Application of
Standards called on the United Kingdom Government to
“ensure that existing and prospective legislation is in
conformity with the Convention”—
that is, Convention No. 87, which governs freedom of association
and protection of the right to organise.
3.30pm
The committee has also issued a rare instruction for Ministers to
seek technical assistance from ILO staff and report back on
progress in September, in addition to seeking more consultation
from unions and employers. This is precisely why I am arguing
that your Lordships should consider sending this back. We want
more and proper consultation. This is not simply about delaying
the legislation, no matter what the Minister says; this is about
having due regard to people’s human rights. The last time that
the ILO intervened in this way was in 1995, when the committee
called on the Government to improve consultation with social
partners on legislation relevant to them.
My noble friend Lady O’Grady recently asked a Written Question on
the steps that the Government intend to take following the ILO
statement. The Answer stated:
“The Government believes that our trade union law complies with
international conventions, including those of the International
Labour Organisation (ILO).
Workers in the UK have the right to join a union and organise,
this is rightly protected by law. They also have the ability to
strike should they wish to. The Government believes however that
taking strike action has to be balanced with the rights of
others, including employers and members of the public.
We will consider the findings of the ILO report carefully and
respond in due course”.
We have heard that term plenty of times in this Chamber. They
should properly consult and engage with social partners in this
country before putting in place a law full of unintended
consequences.
Despite the repeated assurances that the Minister makes, this
Bill is at variance with the experts, government employers and
workers appointed in accordance with the ILO constitution to
assess compliance with its conventions—a body which this
Government are represented on, experts whom this Government
supported the appointment of. That is why it is essential that
the Government and the other place think again.
This amendment requires Ministers to do exactly what the ILO is
requesting—undertake consultation when considering introducing
regulations to implement minimum service levels. It sets
conditions before minimum service level regulations can be
considered. This includes an impact assessment, something that we
all should expect, which will consider the impact on the public,
the conduct of those services and the right to strike. It would
require consultation with social partners, including on the
protection of workers named in work notices. Today, the Minister
confirmed that if someone does not comply with a notice, they
will lose their protection and be sacked. This is a charter for
dismissing people who take that legitimate right to take strike
action. The amendment would require the relevant Secretary of
State to consult with the ILO—the statement that I referred to
earlier—and for a Joint Committee to consider the impact
assessment and the report on consultation with social
partners.
As I have heard said before in this Chamber, these steps should
have been taken before this Bill was presented to Parliament. We
had no looking through the consequences and developing a policy.
Instead, it was, “Let’s have a skeleton Bill that people don’t
understand the consequences of. Let’s put the legislation in
place and consult afterwards”. We have not even had the results
of the consultations on the sectors referred to in the Bill, and
we are unlikely to have them until the autumn. We should not give
this Government a blank cheque on such a fundamental human right
which needs to be protected. I beg to move.
(GP)
My Lords, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Collins, is
absolutely perfect for this situation. The hubris and arrogance
of this Government are breathtaking. I do not understand how they
can bring a Bill that does three massive things—the noble Lord,
Lord Collins, was very generous to the Government because he
talked about “unintended consequences”, but I do not think that
these consequences are unintended at all.
The first is that it gives Ministers more power. Over the past
couple of years, we have seen the Government constantly trying to
give more power to Ministers and less with Parliament—less
scrutiny and democracy. That needs to be challenged. Secondly,
this new law undermines workers’ rights and could even punish
workers who are genuinely off sick or in hospital. Thirdly, it
forces the trade unions to act on behalf of employers to make
workers go to work on strike days, with severe legal consequences
if they do not.
I hope the Government see the common sense in this amendment,
take a step back and think about the ramifications of what they
are trying to do.
(CB)
My Lords, I support Motion A1 for different reasons. The proposal
by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, makes it much more likely that,
if implemented, the Bill will comply with the United Kingdom’s
obligations under the ILO convention and, therefore, under the
European Convention on Human Rights. The Minister expressed
concerns about delay in implementing the Bill. There is no point
in having a Bill that is speedily implemented if it does not
comply with our obligations under the ILO convention and the
European Convention on Human Rights. I hope that the Government
see the good sense in this Motion and recognise that it is in
their interests to have a Bill that is effective and lawful.
(Con)
My Lords, I will start with three words of the Minister:
“much-needed legislation”. I have not had a single email asking
me to support this Bill or a single letter. No Conservative trade
unionist has come to me and said, “This is a really necessary
piece of legislation”. Actually, it is a nonsense of a Bill. It
will not work. I support what was said by the noble Lord, , which is about the only way
of ever getting it to work, but then we have to ask whether it
should work. The fact is it should not, because it goes too near
people’s rights in industrial relations.
I quote from the former Business Secretary, who is not someone I
normally quote. said:
“This Bill is almost so skeletal that we wonder if bits of the
bones were stolen away by wild animals and taken and buried
somewhere, as happens with cartoon characters”.—[Official Report,
Commons, 30/1/23; col. 89.]
It is a disgrace of a Bill.
I will not delay the House for long. I am dubious about whether
we should send it back yet again, because of the doctrine of the
primacy of the lower House, rather than because I disagree with
the amendment. But I ask the Government to stop passing
legislation like this, which is a nonsense. I seldom welcome what
the Labour Party says, but it will certainly be held to that word
“repeal”. If it gets into government—and, you never know, it
might one day—my first Written Question will be, “When will you
bring forward a Bill to repeal this?”
(LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to support the amendment, as set out
so thoroughly and excellently by the noble Lord, Lord Collins. I
have very little to say; I will make just three points.
First, noble Lords who have been observing will remember that on
a number of occasions I have proposed amendments that try to give
Parliament more say on what is going on. Having got to where we
are, I am happy to subsume that objective within the amendment
that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, has set forward, but it
remains an important and missing element in the Bill. We should
not forget that.
The noble Lord also set a lot of store by the recent ILO
announcement. He is right to do so, but this amendment is
necessary with or without it. The announcement makes it clear to
us on these Benches that the Commons should be given another
chance to reassess the Bill in the light of the details coming in
from the ILO.
Finally, the Minister talks about delay. The first iteration of
this Bill was drafted and laid before Parliament about a year
ago. If the Government really are that breathless about getting
this on the statute book, they could have moved a little quicker.
This is about politics, not actually doing anything real out
there. The noble Lord, , is right in that concern.
Because of that, we will certainly support the noble Lord, Lord
Collins, if he chooses to put this to a vote.
(Con)
My Lords, as I said in my opening remarks, we have had a very
similar debate a number of times, so I can keep my response
brief. I have responded to these points previously, but I will
make one point on the ILO report in response to the noble Lords,
Lord Collins, and .
The ILO did not say that this legislation did not comply with the
convention; it simply said that it should and that we should
ensure that it does. In my view it does, as our response to the
Parliamentary Question rightly said. I have made the point many
times in this House that the ILO has been clear over many years
that minimum service levels can be appropriate in public services
of fundamental public importance. That is why many other
countries in Europe and around the world that are signatories to
the ILO have had minimum service levels in place for many years.
The Liberal Democrats and the noble Lord, , normally urge us to go the way
of Europe and follow what EU countries are doing. In this case,
we are doing precisely that.
I therefore hope, although without a great deal of optimism, that
noble Lords will cede to the wishes of the elected House and
agree to the Government’s Motions, which would then bring this
Bill’s passage to a close.
(Lab)
My Lords, I will take the unusual but reasonable step of pressing
this, for one good reason. The Minister talks about the ILO not
saying that the Bill is non-compliant. Part of the problem is
that no one knows what this law means. Trade unions do not know
what reasonable steps they need to take to protect the right to
strike. We heard the Minister confirm that workers who receive a
work notice will lose protection from dismissal.
The Minister talks about the ILO and minimum service levels in
Europe. Nobody is against minimum service levels. They are
essential, but in every European country they work because they
are agreed by voluntary agreement and because people consent. As
soon as you remove that consent, you are in trouble. That is why
employers are so against what the Government are arguing.
I know that it might feel a bit repetitive, but the ILO report is
new and the Commons needs to consider it. I plead with all noble
Lords: please support my Motion. I wish to test the opinion of
the House.
[Division 1
Division on Motion A1
Content
223
Not Content
204
Motion A1 agreed.
Held on 4 July 2023 at
3.45pm](/Lords/2023-07-04/division/0A488F60-7FF9-4AFD-994F-5459CFD91966/LordsChamber?outputType=Names)
3.55pm
Motion B
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 4B to which the
Commons have disagreed for their Reason 4C.
4C: 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.
Motion C
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 5B, 5C and 5D to
which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 5E.
5E: Because amendment 5B 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, and amendments 5C and
5D are consequential on amendment 5B.
Motions agreed.
|
