Asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had
with (1) employers, (2) employment agencies, and (3) trade
unions, about their plans to remove regulation 7 of the Conduct
Regulations 2003 to allow agency staff to cover for striking
workers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy () (Con)
My Lords, the removal of Regulation 7, which gets rid of an
outdated blanket ban on employment businesses supplying agency
staff to cover strikes, is about ensuring that the British public
do not have to pay the price for disproportionate strike action.
We consulted extensively on this in 2015 and have carefully
considered the responses received when deciding to proceed. In
our view, further consultation is unlikely to bring up
fundamental issues not already raised.
(Lab)
I thank the Minister for his response, but he will not be
surprised to hear that it is just not good enough. He has not
consulted trade unions or employment agencies and, with respect,
he does not even want to consult Parliament. That is the simple
truth of it. Just last week—and I am not sure whether this is
government policy—he claimed that unions do not represent
anybody. That is crazy stuff—tell it to the 6 million trade
unionists in this country. Will he at least listen to the bosses
of Hays, Adecco, Manpower and 10 other major UK recruitment firms
when they warn him that these strike-breaking proposals are
likely to inflame and prolong disputes, not solve them?
(Con)
The noble Lord will not be surprised to know that I do not agree
with him. We did consult the trade unions; in fact, the TUC
submitted a petition of 25,000 names against the proposals, so
they clearly had a chance to comment. We will of course consult
Parliament when the regulations are debated.
(LD)
My Lords, there is a huge workforce crisis across the United
Kingdom and a shortage of people. Does the Minister not believe
that, rather than using agencies to cross picket lines, he should
be working with agencies and other groups to try to plug the hole
in Britain’s workforce?
(Con)
I am not sure of the point the noble Lord is making. We want to
work with all the appropriate agencies to, as the noble Lord
says, plug the hole in the workforce.
(Lab)
My Lords, what sort of importance do the Government place on
international trading partners meeting their commitment to the
ILO’s fundamental conventions? If the noble Lord thinks it is
important, can he tell us what assessment the Government have
made of the compatibility of these regulations with the Human
Rights Act, the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, and the
UK’s commitment to the ILO’s fundamental conventions, including
article 3 of convention 87?
(Con)
We are confident that we are meeting all our international
obligations. We are not interfering with the right to strike;
workers still have the right to take strike action, provided they
fulfil the legal tests required. We are confident in our legal
advice on this.
(Con)
My Lords, when these regulations are repealed, will the
Government make sure that suitable points are put in place to
safeguard worker and consumer safety? Some agencies have objected
on the grounds that unqualified people might be drafted in to do
these jobs. It is important that safety regulations are in place
to look after consumers and workers, whether they are in trade
unions or not.
(Con)
I agree completely with my noble friend’s point. None of these
regulations affects the existing safety provisions. Any staff who
are drafted in will have to meet all the appropriate safety
obligations that existing workers meet.
(Lab)
My Lords, why do the Government need the most restrictive
measures in Europe? Why can they not follow the German model of
working with working groups and trade unions to resolve disputes
before they happen? What has changed between now and the P&O
dispute, when the Government took a very hard line? They seem to
be now doing exactly the same as P&O.
(Con)
We are always happy to work with organisations that want to work
with us. The P&O situation is entirely different; it seems
clear that P&O acted unlawfully, although that is being
investigated at the moment. We have a commitment to bring in
legislation for minimum wage protection for seafarers.
(Lab)
My Lords, prices have been rising at 9.1% per annum and wages are
rising, on average, at 4%. This means that working people are
looking at a cut in real wages of 5% per annum. Would not the
Government be better off trying to cap prices, rather than
undermining trade unions for defending the living standards of
working people?
(Con)
If the view of the modern Labour Party is that capping prices is
effective in a modern industrialised market economy then I truly
despair.
(Lab)
My Lords, do the Government actually believe that there is a
right to strike? In the railways dispute and in the potential
disputes for airline staff, the votes were overwhelmingly in
support of strike action and these strikes are absolutely legal,
yet the Government seek to use secondary legislation to
completely undermine the trade unions. Has convinced the Tory party
that we should go back to the 18th century Combination Acts?
(Con)
The answer to the noble Lord’s question is yes.
Noble Lords
Oh!
(Con)
I meant yes in terms of believing in the right to strike; let me
clarify that for the benefit of the House. Nothing in these
regulations inhibits the right of workers to go on strike. It is
worth pointing out that employers can currently employ people
directly to take the place of striking workers. All these
regulations would do would be to allow for them to bring in
agency workers—although, of course, they still have to meet all
the appropriate safety provisions my noble friend mentioned
earlier.
(Lab)
My Lords, is it any coincidence that these proposals are being
made during the course of a dispute in the railway industry? Is
the country supposed to believe that there are agencies out there
that can recruit signallers, train drivers or booking clerks to
take over the jobs of those who are on strike? Is this not yet
another example of an overpromoted Secretary of State seeking a
newspaper headline?
(Con)
This is not specifically targeted at the current rail strikes.
The regulations will apply to all sectors of the economy, not
just the rail sector.
(LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, , mentioned the letter that
the heads of the major agencies wrote to the Secretary of State.
In that letter they said:
“we can only see these proposals inflaming strikes—not ending
them.”
Will the Government take the advice of these experts in
employment and back down from this measure?
(Con)
If agencies do not wish to take part in the freedoms offered by
these regulations then it is entirely their right not to do
so.
(Lab)
My Lords, this is hardly St Francis of Assisi, is it? As this is
not specifically about the rail workers, are the Government
confident that they will find these armies of agency junior
doctors and junior barristers down the track?
(Con)
As I said, this applies in all sectors of the economy. Agencies
already supply a considerable number of personnel in the fields
that the noble Baroness mentioned.
(Lab)
My Lords, even the Prime Minister condemned P&O’s violation
of employment laws, and now the Government are going ahead with
implementing those despicable practices in UK law. Could the
Minister tell us what other bad practices they are ready to
implement?
(Con)
I answered that question earlier. This is an entirely different
situation from the P&O dispute, as it was at the time. We
were committed to taking action to prevent abuses such as that,
and we are still committed to that. This is an entirely different
situation.
(LD)
My Lords, agencies might be able to help with one or two spare
government appointments at present: independent adviser to the
Prime Minister, chairman of the Conservative Party, et cetera.
Have the Government considered approaching the agencies on
that?
(Con)
The noble Lord pursues an innovative line of questioning that I
did not consider in all the preparation I did for this. It is
clearly something that I will want to bear in mind.
