Driving Test Delays
(2 days, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reduce delays in taking a driving test.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, this Government continue to work hard to tackle car practical driving test waiting times. They provided 1.95 million tests last year and have so far recruited a further 170 driving examiners nationally, but further action is needed. In April, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced further measures to tackle the test backlog. This included DVSA’s fast-track consultation on improving test booking rules, launched on 28 May, to prevent learner drivers being charged excessive fees and to combat test-buying bots.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
The Minister may recall our earlier exchange on the subject, when he said:
“The real answer is to reduce the length of time it takes to get a test. Currently in England, it is nearly 21 weeks. The Government have a target to reduce that to seven weeks by the end of December this year”.—[Official Report, 13/1/25; col. 909.]
Since then, waiting times have gone up, the December target has moved back to summer next year and, recently, the 60-plus driving test centres in and around London had no slots available at all. Into this chaos, we now have ticket touts using bots to hoover up the available slots at £62 a time and then reselling them to desperate learner drivers for £200 or more. This is not selling tickets for Glastonbury; this is a government service for people who need to drive to get to work. The only people who should book tests are those who want to take them, and if they cannot take the test, the slot should go back to the DVSA. This is a racket ripping off learner drivers. Why do the Government not stop it?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, the Government’s inheritance in this matter was that, as of July 2024, there were 532,782 car practical driving tests booked. That number has gone up, as the noble Lord remarks, but the series of actions taken by this Government is far greater than any set of actions taken by the previous Government—in fact, I cannot find any actions taken by them, other than two disputes with driving examiners, which pushed down the number of tests. This Government have done several things, and the consultation I referred to previously, launched a few days ago, is about putting a stop to the exploitation of learner drivers. The previous Government could have done more, but this Government are doing it now.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister outline whether the Government are considering using AI to better detect and block bot-driven booking abuse; for example, monitoring booking patterns and identifying suspicious activity in real time to help prevent bots monopolising test availability?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. The Government are using modern technology to do just that. As a result of some of the actions taken since the Government took office, there has been a further number of warnings, suspensions and closed accounts. That is a consequence of monitoring what is going on. However, it has to be said that the people who use the bots are always one step ahead, so the consultation launched recently is about changing some of the rules to make sure it is not worth using bots. We have to make sure that people who want to book tests themselves, and driving instructors and the businesses they run, both have the opportunity of booking tests so as to get people working and contributing to the economy.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, having listened carefully to what the Minister said in response to my noble friend Lord Young, I will make two points. First, when we left office, we had reduced the backlog from a 20-week delay at its peak to 15 weeks. Since then, it has got worse, not better. Secondly, if the Minister looks more carefully in his folder, he will see that we did have a comprehensive plan, with a number of steps that we took—remarkably similar to the steps that the Government themselves have laid out—and that had some success in bringing down that backlog. The simple question to the Minister is: why has it got worse on his watch?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I welcome another former Secretary of State for Transport to the House, and I look forward to my interactions with him. Looking back at the numbers of tests booked, in fact he is right: there was a modest change from 2023 to 2024. The 2023 figure was 548,000 tests and the 2024 figure was 532,000. This is not an easy issue to solve, and the truth is that behaviours have changed, but what we are concentrating on here is a series of measures, including the latest consultation—which was clearly not planned by the previous Government because it is as a result of the call for evidence from December last year, which had 27,000 responses. This fast-track consultation is about changing the rules to make sure that people who try to profit through bots do not succeed.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, the last time we discussed this question in your Lordships’ House, I told the House how I had personal experience from a member of my family on this issue, who paid way over the odds to get a timely test. While I welcome the consultation that the Minister described, can he also say something about what the Government are doing to recruit more driving examiners so that more slots can be made available? The secondary market is thriving because what ought to be a government service that is easily available is not.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness. Of course, it is not right that people should be paying a premium for something that is a public service. Since July 2024, 287 recruits have been taken on board and started a training course, of which 170 have completed training successfully, 74 failed to complete the course and 43 are in training, and a further 178 are either booked for a training start or are in pre-employment checks after accepting an offer. The Government are working hard to increase the number of tests, but, as I said previously, people’s behaviour is changing: because they know that currently it is quite difficult, they are booking the test almost when they start and get a provisional licence. We have to increase the number of tests available through having more driving examiners—and there is more work yet to do to increase the number of people who can train and test prospective driving examiners—but we also have to do things to the booking system to reduce the prevalence of bots being successful.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, how does that figure for driving instructors compare with the 450 that, in January, the Minister stood at that Dispatch Box and pledged to recruit with a view to eliminating the problem by December?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Well, if the noble Lord adds the 287 who have been taken on board and started the training course to the future training pipeline of 178, I think he will see that it gives 465, which is extraordinarily close to the figure that I cited last time.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
If we had proceeded with identity cards, some of the fiddling which is now taking place would never have been able to happen. Is it not a great regret that the coalition Government and the two parties opposite abandoned that, and is it not time that when we come round again to review our position on immigration right across the board, we need to return to looking at identity cards?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I would defer to my noble friend Lord Hanson, sitting next to me, who probably has a far greater grasp of whether that is a good thing to do. In a sense, I am not sure that that will help here, because the one thing that you must have to book a driving test is a provisional driving licence, and with that you get an identity. The difficulty is not that the original bookers do not have an identity; it is the test being swapped around—in some cases, several times, up to 10 times—and not being able to be utilised in the end by people who need them.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, I completely appreciate that my noble friend is trying to clear up the mess that he was left with, but is he aware of a problem whereby for those who have passed the theory test, because of the delays in getting the practical test, the passing of the theory test runs out? Is this something that he is aware of, and could he look at extending the validity of the theory test so that when people get the practical test, they do not have to pay twice for the theory test?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that; I am aware of this. What we must not do in all this is reduce the safety content. The rule about theory tests and their expiry after two years is designed to make sure that when you take a practical test, you have a really up-to-date grasp of the basics of road safety and driving. The Government are not currently planning to relax that. The solution, which we have talked about already, is to have more tests with more examiners and more people training examiners in order for people to be able to get their test faster.
Corporate Liquidations
(2 days, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Leigh of Hurley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the reasons for the reported rise in corporate liquidations in the year to 31 March 2025.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, in the year to 31 March 2025, total corporate liquidations rose by 8%. This increase was driven by a 36% jump in solvent liquidations, while insolvent liquidations fell by 3%. The current corporation insolvency rate remains less than half what it was during the 2008-09 recession. Businesses go into liquidation for various reasons—tight cash flow, falling sales and loss of market share to online rivals—but no single factor dominates. Compulsory liquidations have increased mainly due to the increase in winding-up petitions from creditors, mainly from HMRC.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
The Minister is right: in fact, more than 2,000 businesses have faced winding-up petitions this year, the highest rate since 2012. Today, we learn that the number of payrolled employees has fallen by 274,000 over the past year, and most worryingly by 109,000 just this month past. The Institute of Chartered Accountants has predicted that eye-watering costs to business, particularly tax costs, will lead to more job losses. Does the Minister agree with me that as every single Labour Government have left office with unemployment higher than when—
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
Noble Lords may groan. As every single Labour Government have left office with unemployment higher than when they came to office, now is the time to reduce tax, which is at an all-time record high for businesses, particularly SMEs, before the next election.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, of course these are disappointing figures, but six months after launching Get Britain Working we are seeing real results, with economic activity at a record high, half a million more people in jobs since we took office and real wages having grown more since July than at any other time in the last decade. It is also worth noting that the latest GDP figures tell a very different story, up 7% in Q1 of this year, showing the UK economy’s resilience and potential. These indicators suggest a labour market that remains robust and responsive, not one that is being held back.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that what was worrying about the liquidation numbers in 2024 was the increase in compulsory liquidations? That came ahead of the NICs increases, so it is a real red flag. The businesses that I speak to are desperately depending on the industrial strategy to restore their prospects. Can the Minister assure the House that the IS will include a focus on small businesses, including opportunities for government procurement? Will the Government reverse their policy of demanding that SMEs cede ownership of their intellectual property if they enter into even a small government contract?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that we will publish our industrial strategy very soon, and it will definitely cover SMEs. As I mentioned earlier, compulsory liquidation is not something new. Companies go bust. We have seen big companies fail. Failure is a reality of business. Even major firms such as Ted Baker, The Body Shop and Wilko have collapsed. We should be thinking about how to support these corporate failures. We must have a more robust system, whether it is the credit system that needs reforming or even British banks. We must incorporate the American culture. Yes, we have to address failures, but more important is how we get up, dust ourselves down and get on to the business market again.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that some of these business closures, particularly for SMEs—where payroll is their largest expense—were triggered not only by the scheduled increase in NICs but by the steep hikes in the national minimum wage? As the noble Lord pointed out, this was demonstrated by the very disturbing falls in payrolled staff and vacancies reported by the ONS. The resulting squeeze on their cash flow may cause a further spike in the rate of liquidations through Q2 and Q3. How does this sit with the Government’s claim to have “restored economic stability”?
Lord Leong (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an interesting observation that I do not share. First, there is no empirical evidence to suggest that NICs or business rates changes are primary reasons for any of these closures in the UK. I can give examples of businesses that are doing very well. Let us look at the hospitality business. I just looked at the latest results for JD Wetherspoon, which had revenue of £2.2 billion and EBITDA of £19.28 million. Stonegate, one of the largest pub companies in the UK, had revenue of £1.75 billion and EBITDA of £394 million. These are not companies that are in trouble. The picture is mixed. Yes, we have some contraction in the business sector, but businesses are thriving. Do not listen to me. Listen to people such as the president of Blackstone, who this week said:
“I would give the UK Government a lot of credit for embracing business”.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that under the last Government we nearly had bankruptcy in the economy, we had very low levels of growth and we had poverty wages? Is it not time for them to have a period of silence?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. All I can say is that in my long years of business I have learned one thing. Turnover is vanity; profit is sanity. If companies keep chasing turnover without the support of working capital, they will be on the first and pretty fast step to failure.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, first, does the Minister accept that the spike in voluntary closures is directly linked to the Government’s decision to hike the entrepreneurs’ exit tax from 10% to 14%—soon to go up to 18%—as well as increases in capital gains tax, which are prompting many owners to race for the exit?
Separately, in answering a question earlier he relied heavily on GDP figures, which will be small comfort to those people who have lost their jobs, but I think I heard him say 7% growth. I do not think that is right—would he care to correct the record?
Lord Leong (Lab)
Apologies; it is 0.7% growth. I thank the noble Lord for that. At the end of the day, what is really important is that we have to support businesses, and the Government are supporting businesses. Capital gains tax is still the lowest in Europe. In the G7, only the US and Japan are lower than us. Frankly, most employers go into business to create businesses. Sometimes they exit business, and some of our tax reliefs are still better than those of many other countries in Europe.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, several of the corporate collapses that the Minister referred to earlier were associated with private equity ownership and high levels of debt. Moody’s reports that default rates have been twice as high for private equity-owned firms as for others. The Financial Times leading article on 6 June noted that, with exit activity from private equity funds slumping to a historically low level, some private equity firms
“are resorting to … risky … methods of generating liquidity”.
Are the Government concerned about private equity’s impact through these means on both the real economy and financial stability?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, private equity plays an important role in business support in this country. We have seen private equity companies that have acquired businesses and actually grown them as well. Yes, their track record is not great, but there is definitely a role for private equity in business in this country. Do not listen to the Government. Listen to people in the private equity business. Jamie Dimon said:
“I’ve always been a believer in the UK’s … strengths as a place to do business and there’s much to like about the new government’s pro-growth agenda”.
Yesterday, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang argued that the UK was in the “Goldilocks” zone with great universities, a good start-up culture and the third-largest amount of investment in AI companies globally outside the US and China.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in the 2024-25 financial year, the Insolvency Service disqualified more than 1,000 company directors? Of those, a significant proportion—736—were banned for abusing the Covid-19 Bounce Back Loan Scheme. Additionally, there were 131 individuals subject to bankruptcy restriction orders, with 87 of them also linked to the misuse of Covid-19 loans. How many businesses had to wind up because of those facts?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that. Yes, those figures are quite high. It is right that the full force of the law should come down on company directors who are found to be trading insolvently. Basically, there are different forms of liquidation, from creditors’ voluntary liquidation to compulsory liquidation, which I mentioned earlier, which has increased mainly because of HMRC prosecution. HMRC, Companies House and insolvency practices target abuses such as tax evasion and this whole area of phoenixism with tougher enforcement, personal liability for directors and upfront tax demand. That should be the way.
Electric Cycles: Illegal Use on Roads
(2 days, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hogan-Howe
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to encourage police forces across England and Wales to seize electric cycles being used illegally on roads.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, through the Crime and Policing Bill, the Government will amend Section 59 of the Police Reform Act to allow the police to seize any vehicle, including e-scooters, which are used in an antisocial manner, without having to first give a warning to the offender. The Government are also consulting on proposals to allow police more swiftly to dispose of seized vehicles. These actions, I believe, will send a clear message that anti-social use of any vehicle will not be tolerated.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I commend the new Government for taking some steps, but I do not think they have taken enough. Sergeant Ford, who sits here today, has a small team of 10 in the City of London Police—the smallest force in the country—who are actually doing something about cyclists who are ignoring the law, particularly on e-bikes. He and the courts class e-bikes that do not conform to the regulations as motor vehicles. Those who drive them on our roads without insurance get six points on their licence. When are the Government going to get a grip on this? Every day, we see cycles and e-bikes travelling at 30 or 40 mph on our streets, putting our pedestrians at risk, and it seems that our forces are doing nothing about it. I challenge the Government to do more.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I commend the City of London Police for its actions. The force covers a small geographical area, but it seized 325 e-cycles in 2024, which is a good thing. The noble Lord mentioned legislation; we have tabled several new offences to the Crime and Policing Bill, on causing death by dangerous cycling, causing serious injury by dangerous cycling, causing death by careless or inconsiderate cycling and causing serious injury by careless or inconsiderate cycling. Those four new offences—if passed by this House and the House of Commons—will ensure that there are further measures in place that the police can enforce. There is no point in passing legislation if the police do not enforce it. I know, from my view of London every day, that there are people cycling dangerously and cycling in a way that will potentially cause injury. This legislation and the power to seize bikes will send a clear signal that we will not tolerate this.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the greatest hazards among users of e-bikes comes from delivery drivers who have disengaged the speed limiter? They are fairly easy to recognise. Should the police not be focusing on them?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Viscount is absolutely right: delivery drivers are a potential area of hazard. This legislation will apply to them, but it is also incumbent on those companies that employ delivery drivers to take action in the event of individuals being found to have breached the legislation, who have perhaps secured points on their licence and will, in future, perhaps be subject to this legislation.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, given the challenges with identifying illegally modified e-bikes, and given the success of the mobile rolling road test benches used in the Netherlands that enable police quickly and accurately to determine whether e-bikes exceed legal power or speeds, will the Government consider looking at what is being done in the Netherlands and deciding whether that might be appropriate to use here? I think the Government will find that the success in the Netherlands is something that we really ought to replicate here.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I will certainly look at the position in the Netherlands and see what we can take from that. The measures that I mentioned will be before this House in very short order, when there will be an opportunity to examine and further debate them. It is also important to say that the police take very seriously the question of offenders on e-cycles that are modified and looked on as motorcycles. When appropriate, if they wish to, the police may even pursue an illegally modified e-cycle and employ tactical options to bring the vehicle to a stop. This is unacceptable anti-social behaviour, and the Government are taking it seriously and have put new legislation forward. For the very reasons mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, we want to ensure that the police up their performance in tackling this by making arrests and seizing bikes where they cross the threshold of illegality.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, the steps that the Government have announced are very welcome, but will they do more to hold to account the corporate interest, which is employing some of the delivery drivers that, quite rightly, have been named as a problem here, and call them in and make it clear that the low-paid workers who are riding a lot of these illegal, uninsurable vehicles are not the only ones who should be held to account here? Those big tech companies should be told that, unless they make it clear that illegal bikes cannot be used to deliver our groceries and takeaways, they too will be held to account.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend makes an important point. There is a corporate responsibility for people who are employed to deliver. If a vehicle, as in a delivery car or van, was undertaking persistent behaviour of an antisocial nature, I am sure the company would take action, and companies should be looking to do the same with cycles and e-bikes. I hope my noble friend will accept that the measures before the House shortly are an initial, very strong signal on criminal action on potential death and injury from cycling and on the seizure of bikes by the police. At the moment, the seizure of bikes can be undertaken by the police, but they have to give a warning. Under the legislation before us now, no warning will be given: a bike will be seized if the police officer wishes to seize it. We will take action and dispose of that bike or crush it within short order.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, it is currently illegal to use a bicycle or an e-bike on a pavement. It is putting vulnerable people, such as people in wheelchairs and young children in prams, at risk. I welcome the provisions that the Minister is including in the Crime and Policing Bill, and I think it encompasses a lot of the provisions in my Private Member’s Bill. If the police are not enforcing the current law, what possible hope do we have that they will enforce any future law?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the work that the noble Baroness has done on this matter. The Private Members’ Bills that she has brought forward have been very instrumental in raising this issue. It is self-evidently an issue: in the course of the day, none of us will drive or walk around and not see somebody committing an offence that should be taken to court and dealt with. The police have many calls on their time, and they have to be there to see the potential offence and catch the individual at that time. I am very hopeful that the 13,000 extra neighbourhood police officers that this Government are putting in place will be able to help support that enforcement and that action. I remind the noble Baroness that those are 13,000 officers that were not there over the previous 14 years.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, leading on from the Minister’s answer, this is a serious matter, which needs to be addressed by government. I wager that every noble Lord has seen some sort of illegality related to electric cycles, such as speeding violations or people riding them on pavements, and by cyclists, such as running red lights and failing to stop at zebra crossings. In light of this, can I ask the Minister whether the current legal framework around e-cycles and e-scooters is well understood by the public and, indeed, the police? If not, what steps are being taken to address it? Does he consider that sufficient attention is being given by the police to this issue? If not, what is his department doing to remedy it?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. It is important that cyclists particularly understand and know the legislation that appertains to their responsibility in using a bike or e-bike. Going back to the point made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, 324 offences were undertaken and arrests were made in the City of London; over 1,000 were undertaken in the remainder of the Metropolitan Police area, and there were many more across the country at large. For those offences, individuals need to know that, if you go through a traffic light, ride on a pavement or crash into somebody, there is a consequence for you if you are seen by a police officer and brought to account. The new offences will mean that the dangerous behaviour that the noble Lord has mentioned of potential injury or potential death by going across a zebra crossing or going through a red light will face a significant punishment of custodial terms. People—drivers, pedestrians and, dare I say it, cyclists—need to understand that.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, electric cycles that meet the specific regulations are allowed to be used on public roads. There are numerous parts of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, where electric scooters are banned on public roads. Despite this, they are often ridden openly and recklessly in these locations. What can the Minister and his ministerial colleagues do to persuade local police forces throughout the kingdom to use the powers given to them to confiscate electric scooters that are used contrary to the law?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The law is there for individuals to adhere to, and it is for the police, in the event of people not adhering to it, to collect evidence and put it to the Crown Prosecution Service, which can put it to the courts to issue penalties. We are trying to improve the level of the penalties and improve the ability of police to take action speedily rather than having to give warnings first. There are different arrangements in place in other parts of the United Kingdom, because some of the aspects we are bringing forward are devolved to England only or are matters for England and Wales through the police force. It is a serious issue, which I know every elected Member in the House of Commons and every Member in this House, takes extremely seriously, because we can see the visible impact of those offences on a daily basis. The commitment I am giving to the House is that, if the House passes the legislation, there will be additional measures and powers which will, I hope, impact upon the public awareness, which the noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned, and on criminal justice outcomes.
Public Order Act 1986: Section 5
(2 days, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Berridge
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to review the operation of section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 to ensure that it respects freedom of religion and belief in the United Kingdom.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and outline my interests as declared in the register.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
The Government have no plans to review Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 but remain committed to ensuring that all public order legislation protects both public safety and, importantly, individual freedoms.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. Your Lordships’ House will be aware that freedom of religion or belief in the UK was hard won over many centuries. Citizens need to be able to peacefully criticise the tenets of someone’s faith or beliefs and institutions. Regrettably, recently the Crown Prosecution Service purported to charge an offence under the Public Order Act of
“intent to cause against religious institution of Islam, harassment alarm or distress”.
That is entirely wrong in law, as well as poor grammar. It raised emotions on an already delicate situation and had, of course, to be amended. While respecting the independence of the Crown Prosecution Service from both Parliament and government, will the Minister outline what review is being undertaken to ensure that the Crown Prosecution Service has adequate legal and religious knowledge and that senior leaders approve charges in cases such as this—I am assuming they did not approve that charge—to ensure that that does not happen again?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Government are absolutely committed to free speech and to ensuring that we are an open, diverse country where freedom of speech is valued and freedom of religion is maintained. If the noble Baroness is referring to a particular case that I am aware of in relation to the burning of the Koran recently, I take the view that the law should apply no matter what the religion or faith that is potentially impinged upon. The offence there was not because burning the Koran was illegal. The actions of the individual were seen by the Crown Prosecution Service, following police investigation, to be harassment and abusive action. In that case, the police investigated and collected evidence and put it to the CPS. The CPS looked at that evidence and the case was put before a court, where the individual was found guilty. The individual concerned is now appealing. I cannot say any more about that case. However, whatever we do, it is important that the law is applied equally, fairly and across all religions.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, if such a review were to take place, would the Minister and the Government reaffirm that exercising the freedom to stand silently praying in a public place is not an act of hostility and should therefore not be considered a criminal office within the United Kingdom?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The act of standing and making a protest is a fair and open act. It will not be covered by Section 5 of the Public Order Act. If the noble Lord is referring, as he may be—and if he is not, I apologise—to the question of abortion clinics and abortion legislation, the Government have passed legislation on this matter. Silent protest is allowed, but not within a limit set by law. That is fair and appropriate for people who wish to protest, as well as for people who wish to access a service that this House and the House of Commons have passed as being legal.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
Given reports that recent protests have been largely peaceful, how will the Government ensure that the new powers to restrict protests near places of worship are not used to criminalise lawful dissent or acts deemed to be merely offensive? What guidance will be provided to police so they avoid subjective or arbitrary enforcement and to ensure that these powers are applied proportionately and transparently, to maintain public trust?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Baroness again raises measures that will come before this House in very short order in the Crime and Policing Bill. We are planning to introduce a new measure that gives protection to synagogues, mosques, churches and other places of worship from—and this is the key point—
“intimidating levels of disruption caused by protest activity”.
That is across the board, whatever the religion, whatever the faith. If somebody is undertaking intimidating levels of disruption, and that protest is an intimidatory, harassing protest, action will be taken. This House will have an opportunity to debate where that line is drawn when the Bill comes before the House. It is certainly a measure that I hope Members of the House recognise as being important; it is important that we protect religious organisations from disruption and harassment while, at the same time, ensuring that everybody has the right to protest.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister, as always, for putting equal treatment at the heart of human rights. However, regardless of individual cases that we get hot under the collar about—we pick and choose which ones to get upset about—is it not time to have another look at not just the operation of Section 5 of the 1986 Act but its framing? I suggest that most noble Lords would agree that threatening and harassing conduct should be criminal, but broader, lower-level conduct “likely” to cause “alarm or distress”? Some people are a little bit too easily alarmed and distressed. It is not about just religious freedom; it is about freedom of expression as well.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend. The Government keep all legislation under review at all times. The very fact that this discussion is taking place on this question means that we have looked at the legislation today and looked at the applicability of certain matters. There is a balance to be made. Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 has stood the test of 39 years to date, through a range of protests, a range of measures and a range of Governments. It has stood the test of time.
We keep it under review, but the important principle behind it is that Section 5 of the Public Order Act gives a clear definition of harassment and intimidation. Protest crosses the criminal threshold where it goes into harassment and intimidation. That is why the prosecution was taken in the case to which I believe the noble Baroness referred, and why, in other cases, prosecutions have not been taken.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, it is vital, of course, that, despite social trends, the law remains consistent and is applied in a way that is fair and even. Concerns about political correctness and what is socially acceptable should not determine how a statute such as Section 5 is applied. Recent protests have seen the law applied unevenly in the opinion of some, and clearly threatening antisemitic slogans have been permitted without question. I therefore ask the Minister what discussions he has had with police forces about the thresholds for using Section 5 of the Public Order Act. Can he guarantee that, following these discussions, the police will be under no doubt as to what is and is not permissible under this threshold?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
What I can give the noble Lord is an assurance that the police will treat all members of the community on an equal basis before the law. Where actions have been taken by any protester—be they antisemitic, anti-Islamic, anti-Christian or anti any faith—if they cross the threshold of potential investigation/prosecution/conviction, that will be taken forward on an equal basis by the police. We keep these matters under discussion all the time. There is in my view no such thing as two-tier policing. The police do a job effectively and they will take action when matters are brought to their attention.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, as the general secretary of the Free Speech Union, I declare my interest. Together with the National Secular Society, we paid for the defence of the individual referred to and we will jointly be paying for his appeal. At 2 am on Saturday, the individual in question was woken by police officers at his safe house to inform him that the Metropolitan Police were investigating a plot to kill him. Will the Minister join me in urging the police to do their utmost to protect the individual in question? We do not want a repeat of what happened in Sweden last January, when an Iraqi refugee who had repeatedly burned copies of the Koran was murdered.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. Let me put it this way. If a potential offence—which threats to kill are—is made, the police have a duty to investigate and, if the offence proves to have validity, to take action, to prepare a case, to go to the CPS and to take potential conviction action where the court will determine whether the allegation the noble Lord has made is correct. The individual concerned is appealing. I cannot comment on the appeal; Members of this House would not expect me to comment on either the conviction to date or the potential appeal. I say to the noble Lord that, if offences are potentially being committed, it is the duty of the police to investigate and take action. I will leave it—if he will let me, in a freedom of speech way—at that.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
What is the view of the Government about incidents logged by the police which do not in fact create crimes?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We are in discussion with the police, the College of Policing and the Chief Constables’ Council on the very issue the noble and learned Baroness raises. That has come out of a number of cases since the general election which have been brought to our attention, where we believe the police should be taking action to investigate crimes. But they should also be proportionate in what they do in relation to the way in which that crime is brought to their attention and make a decision on that. I have been clear at this Dispatch Box on several occasions that the police need to examine the approach to those non-crime hate incidents very clearly. I believe the police will be doing so and issuing guidance in due course.
Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment, Surrender and Compensation) (England and Wales) Order 2025
(2 days, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the draft Order and Regulations laid before the House on 27 March and 1 April be approved.
Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Special attention drawn to the instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on 5 June.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move, I hope en bloc, the Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I apologise but I wish to make two very quick points with regard to these measures that we debated last week in Grand Committee. I gave the Government Whips’ Office notice of this.
The first is that these measures relate to the foreign influence registration scheme, which is a significant legislative tool to seek to prevent countries conducting political interference within the UK. There is cross-party support for these and we passed them with the National Security Act. What gives me concern are the exemptions to the scheme that the Government have introduced in one of these measures. We know that many countries seek to influence the UK through education arrangements and the use of sovereign wealth funds. We debated this during the passage of the National Security Bill, when I raised these specific issues, including the use of sovereign wealth funds.
We also know, through warnings from the director-general of MI5, that they are used on an “epic scale” by China. It is the Government’s choice—at their own discretion—not to put China on the enhanced tier of this scheme. The exemption measure introduced by the Government will mean that education and sovereign wealth funds are exempted almost in their entirety from the scheme. I am not seeking to divide the House, because the Conservative Front Bench has supported these exemptions. It will be for it to explain why, but I believe this is an error.
My second quick point is that the Minister, in his characteristic way, listened to the debate and undertook to write to me and others who raised concerns, in advance of today. He honoured that commitment; we received the letter yesterday. I thank him—no doubt he was working on Sunday—and his officials for the comprehensive letter supplied with the annexe of explanations. I remain unsatisfied with the Government’s explanations. But the Minister acts with great respect to this House, and sincerity, and I thank him for honouring his commitment to reply to me.
In his letter, he said that as it is a new scheme it will be “under review” and there will be an annual report. I say sincerely to the Minister that I believe the Government are making an error with these exemptions. I respect the Minister and the explanations he has given, and I look forward to further opportunities to raise these concerns as the scheme is implemented.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the notice the noble Lord gave to my colleagues in the Government Whips’ Office that he was going to raise these matters.
For the benefit of the House, of the five instruments before the House, four relate to Iran and Russia and one relates to the ban on ninja swords. They were moved en bloc. The ninja sword ban, I hope, has broad agreement across the House. The four instruments the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, has mentioned, relate to Iran and Russia. If I may defend myself, I gave an explanation in the Committee. I took the noble Lord’s interventions and gave a further explanation in the Committee. I agreed to write to him and the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate—I am grateful he acknowledged that I did that over the weekend—to clarify still further the reasons the Government have taken the view they have.
For the benefit of the House, the sovereign wealth fund political tier exemption has been targeted to ensure that it does not provide a loophole for foreign powers to channel their political influence and evade the scheme. The vast majority of work done by sovereign wealth funds would already fall out of the political influence tier. The exemption will apply only where the fund is being directed by its home state to carry out political influencing relating to its investment. It is very tightly drawn.
In relation to the funding study arrangements, the exemption ensures that the scheme does not unnecessarily deter international students from studying in the UK. We want—the Liberal Democrats particularly want—international students to come and study in the United Kingdom. We have discussed this very clearly with student bodies and university institutions. We do not consider it necessary to apply the FIRS to international students whose activities are related purely to their course of study. However, for example—this is the point I made in Committee—if the international student was being directed by the Russians or Iranians to carry out wider duties over and above their studies, they would be liable to register. Someone who comes to study is studying. Someone who comes to study but is actually working for the Iranians or Russians has to register. If it becomes known afterwards that they have not registered, they will be liable for a five-year prison sentence. I understand the points the noble Lord has made, and I hope I have satisfied him.
The noble Lord mentioned two other points that I want to touch on. First, we keep this under review at all times. The scheme operates from 1 July onwards, and there will be an annual report. Ministers are going to ensure that the scheme meets its objectives, because our objective is to stop Russian and Iranian influence. The noble Lord mentioned China. We keep all regimes other than Russia and Iran, which are specified in the regulations, under review; if they cross a threshold that the Government have concerns about then action will be taken. We have brought forward these measures because the Russians and the Iranian state are a severe threat to this nation and to individuals residing in this nation, both UK individuals and nationals from foreign states who are in this country. The first scheme is designed to put measures in place—we would not be putting them in place if we believed there are loopholes through which those two countries could slip.
I hope that I have answered those points today, as I thought I had done over several hours in the Grand Committee on Thursday. I commend these instruments to the House.
Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill
(2 days, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
My Lords, I start by paying tribute to the chairman of the Sentencing Council, Lord Justice Bill Davis, after the sad news that he passed away at the weekend. He made a significant contribution to criminal justice and I particularly recognise his work serving on the Sentencing Council, first as a judicial member between 2012 and 2015 and then as its chairman since 2022. The Lady Chief Justice recalled him yesterday as one of the very best criminal judges of his generation. I am conscious that many noble and noble and learned Lords will have known and worked closely with him. I take this opportunity, on behalf of the House, to extend our deep condolences to Lady Davis and his children and to all those who knew him.
I take this opportunity to extend my thanks to the many noble Lords who have contributed to debates on the Bill in this House. Despite its short length, it has prompted careful and detailed consideration from Members of this House, and I am grateful to noble Lords who have, throughout its passage, provided constructive challenge. I am grateful to the officials who have been involved in its preparation and passage. The Opposition Front Bench, in particular the noble Lords, Lord Sandhurst and Lord Wolfson, have engaged constructively on the Bill, for which I am grateful. I pay particular thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, who have all been generous with their time in both their scrutiny of the Bill and their engagement with me. Finally, I thank the team who have supported me on this Bill, in particular Katherine, James and Jack, to whom I am very grateful. I beg to move.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I add my note of sadness at the news of the death of Lord Justice William Davis recently and add my condolences to those of the Minister to his family upon his passing. He was a judge of great distinction. He led the Sentencing Council, which is the subject of this Bill, with very great distinction as well. He will be greatly missed.
Turning to the Bill, we made it clear that we did not agree with the Bill: we did not agree with the principle or that the proposed guidelines of the Sentencing Council threatened the notion of equality before the law. We believed, as is clear, that this was not a sensible use of emergency legislation and that the disagreement between the Sentencing Council and the Lord Chancellor should have been resolved without the need for legislation. We were concerned that the Bill had the potential to damage the Sentencing Council. In the event, we did not succeed in securing the withdrawal of the Bill, or in amending the Bill, which had Conservative support, so it will now become the law.
However, we can take two strong positives from the debate around this Bill. The first is the Government’s commitment to the Probation Service and to the importance of pre-sentencing reports in giving guidance to judges and providing consistency in sentencing. The commitment has been to having more reports of higher quality, backed up by increased resources. I thank the Minister for his kind words to me and others in opening this short debate; I say from these Benches what a credit he has been to his department and to this House in coming fresh to the House with his very strong commitment to the sentencing system and the Probation Service. His presence on the Front Bench has been a breath of fresh air for us all, and we are very grateful to him.
The second positive has been the recognition around this House of the enormous value of the Sentencing Council in giving independent, well-researched advice on sentencing to judges, with a view to promoting consistency not just in sentencing but in the approach to the factors that judges need to take into account in sentencing. I add my gratitude to Members around the House—both those with experience of acting in criminal cases and those with no experience of the criminal law or of law at all—who have stressed the importance of these issues to the development of the law and our criminal justice system, and, perhaps more importantly, to the maintenance of confidence in the criminal justice system in future.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the late Lord Justice William Davis. We learned of his death over the weekend with deep sadness. His integrity, clarity of thought and unwavering commitment to fairness made him a towering figure in the field of criminal justice. His loss will be felt across the entire legal and judicial community, although most immediately by his family, to whom we send sincere condolences.
From these Benches, I express our thanks to all those who contributed to this Bill in Committee and on Report. The quality of that debate, if I may respectfully say so, was exemplary, echoing and always meeting the high standards that this House sets when dealing in particular with matters of criminal justice, with the expertise we have on all sides of the Chamber.
These Benches offer our support for the principles underpinning this legislation. The more effective use of pre-sentence reports will encourage informed and consistent judicial discretion and lead to better sentencing outcomes, reducing reoffending, encouraging rehabilitation and serving the interests of public safety. While this Bill is therefore a very good first step, we look forward, together with other noble Lords around the Chamber, to other initiatives in this area. Sentencing remains a complex and sensitive area of the law because it touches individual lives and the life of the community. We believe that this Bill provides a strong foundation and are confident that it will be implemented to good effect. We therefore support the Bill and look forward to it being implemented as part of a justice system that is fairer, more consistent and more effective.
Finally, on a more personal note, the Minister noted that this was the first Bill which he has taken through the House. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, that we may disagree politically but these Benches recognise that the Minister not only shares a commitment to a fair and modern criminal justice system but has practical experience in this area. Where possible, we will of course work constructively together, as we did on this Bill.
Lord Burnett of Maldon (CB)
My Lords, I first associate myself with the words of those who spoke in tribute to Lord Justice William Davis. News of his death on Saturday morning reached his fellow judges, and former judges, like a thunderclap. He really was tremendously admired and liked. He would take on any additional role that either I or, now, the Lady Chief Justice asked him to assume. He did so smilingly and always with good humour. He will be much missed.
I also associate myself with noble Lords who paid tribute to the Minister for the way this legislation has been piloted through Parliament. I say that despite personally not considering it necessary. It followed the firing off of a letter from the Lord Chancellor at the first whiff of political grapeshot, but we are where we are. In particular, I thank the Minister and his team for the personal courtesy that they showed me in discussing a number of issues that arose in the course of the Bill’s passage. It is perhaps a pity that the Government accepted no amendments in the end, from any noble Lord, but I entirely understand the political imperative for that. Like others, I congratulate the Minister, if that is not thought to be impertinent, on the way in which he conducted this Bill and, more generally, on his debut in this House.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Non-Afl)
The Minister has the right, but not the duty, to reply.
Winter Fuel Payment
(2 days, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I rise with a sense of relief, although not without regret: relief that the Government have chosen to reverse a policy that has caused distress and fear among our oldest and most vulnerable citizens, and regret that such a policy was every pursued in the first place. This reversal gives us cause to reflect on the true value of the winter fuel payment. For pensioners on modest incomes it has never been a luxury, and it has supported the most vulnerable through the darkest and coldest months of the year.
Although we welcome the Government’s decision to U-turn, we must not lose sight of how we came to this point. In December last year, I stood at this Dispatch Box and warned the Minister about the very consequences we are now discussing. At the time, I made it clear, and I reiterate today, that withdrawing the winter fuel payment from all but a limited group of recipients dealt a serious and unjust blow to millions of older people across the country. We made our position clear from the outset: the Government were wrong to scrap the winter fuel payments for millions of vulnerable pensioners.
These Benches opposed that policy on three key principles. First, it would have left millions of older people worse off during the coldest months of the year. Secondly, it reflected a misplaced set of priorities, favouring above-inflation pay rises for public sector workers over the needs of those in later life. Thirdly, it was introduced without transparency, with no reference to such a significant change during the general election campaign. We urged the Government to listen to the concerns raised across the House and consider alternative approaches to fiscal responsibility that did not come at the expense of those who can least afford it. This House raised those concerns. We reminded the Minister of the Conservative’s record on support for pensioners, with the triple lock, the warm home discount and the winter fuel payment itself.
As Churchill once remarked, a man who does not change his mind cannot change anything. As we rightly warned last year, removing the winter fuel payment was an appalling blow for pensioners. Today, the Government have done the honourable thing: they have listened, reflected and acted. Admitting a mistake is never easy, but correcting one is a mark of leadership. On this occasion, the Government have finally listened to your Lordships’ House. Is this a taste of things to come—that they will listen to the serious concerns we are raising on the most damaging elements of their policy platform? Will they row back on those parts of the Employment Rights Bill which will devastate small and medium-sized businesses? Will they finally act to protect our farmers from the punitive family farm tax? Will they halt their assault on the best schools in our country in the schools Bill?
This reversal is not only welcome but essential. It reaffirms our commitment to the millions of pensioners who depend on this support and upholds the integrity of our social contract with those who have worked hard and paid taxes all their life. Let this moment serve as a precedent that the voices of the vulnerable must be heard, that fairness must not be sacrificed for short-term savings and that the dignity of older citizens is not negotiable. That said, it is deeply regrettable that this reversal was ever necessary. The original decision was ill-conceived and caused needless anxiety and hardship for some of the most vulnerable in our society.
Although we welcome the change of heart, we are entitled to ask how it is being paid for. The Government have said that this U-turn will cost around £1.25 billion; if the economic outlook has not materially improved, as the Chancellor’s own figures suggest, then where is this money coming from? Are tax rises now on the table? If so, which taxes and on whom? Will the Minister confirm whether His Majesty’s Treasury intends to raise revenue through stealth taxes or whether further departmental budgets will be cut elsewhere to fund this reversal?
What of the administrative burden? Will pensioners with incomes above £35,000, in particular those with non-taxable income, now be required to complete tax returns? What guidance will be issued to those who may find themselves unexpectedly caught in a new reporting requirement? Further, will the Minister explain what happens to a pensioner who is widowed, inherits a pension and then finds themselves with an income over £35,000?
This House has a duty to speak out when the vulnerable are at risk. Today, we have fulfilled that duty. The Government have listened, but we must remain vigilant. I say to the millions of pensioners left in uncertainty this past winter: you were heard. I say to the Government: let this be a reminder that the strength of a society is measured not by how it treats the powerful but by how it cares for the vulnerable.
Although we welcome this change of heart, we need to understand how the Government have suddenly found the money to pay for it. In the end, the savings achieved by this policy may be as little as £50 million. Will the Minister tell the House whether it has been worth all the pain and aggravation? Will he apologise now to the millions of pensioners who struggled to get by this past winter?
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, this surely must be the Government of unintended consequences. When this policy was first mooted, I asked the Minister whether there would be any financial gain from it because, with the further uptake in pension credits, the actual money saved is miniscule. It is nothing like what the Government said they would get, so we have gone through all this pain and people have suffered, all for a strange bit of ideology.
Following on from what the noble Baroness on the Conservative Front Bench said, reports in the media suggest that winter fuel payments will be made automatically as a universal benefit this winter. Money will then be reclaimed when higher-income pensioners fill in their tax returns. Can the Minister say how the Government will ensure that the new system does not mean that the bereaved families of tens of thousands of dead pensioners—not only widows and widowers but dead pensioners—will be pursued by tax officials to recoup the payments? The Government of unintended consequences strike yet again.
Although the Chancellor has finally acknowledged the failure of this policy—thanks to sustained efforts by the Liberal Democrats and others—the scale of the distress created must not be forgotten. Do the Government intend to uprate the £35,000 threshold in line with inflation in future years?
This has been a disastrous policy. It has not raised the money we were told it was intended to raise. There will be further distress down the line while they try to sort out this mess.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, for their questions and comments. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for welcoming this change of policy, and I thank both speakers for the consensus that now exists across the House on the current policy position.
The noble Baroness began by asking how we got here. We got here, of course, because when we came into office, we had to make a number of very urgent decisions to put the public finances back on a firm footing. That involved us taking some very difficult decisions on welfare, tax and spending, including means testing the winter fuel payment. I am very grateful to her for noting that we have now listened to the concerns raised, inside and outside this House, about the level of the means test.
The noble Baroness asked about the savings that will be generated from this policy. As she rightly said, we expect the policy to cost around £1.5 billion a year in total, including £1.25 billion in England and Wales, by the end of this forecast period. She asked about the savings that this would generate. It is estimated to save around £450 million a year, compared to universal winter payments.
The noble Baroness asked when and how this would be paid for. We are setting out these changes now to ensure that more pensioners can receive support this winter—that is the right thing to do. There is now just one fiscal event a year, so, as is normal, these changes will be fully funded at the next fiscal event, which is the Autumn Budget. This will ensure that final costings and funding decisions come alongside a full forecast from the OBR, and we will ensure that the fiscal rules are met at all times.
The noble Baroness also asked about the other policies we are pursuing. It was appropriate that, ahead of tomorrow’s spending review, she reminded us that the party opposite has not supported a single policy that we have put in place to stabilise the public finances or to raise money for public services. When we have tomorrow’s spending review, it will be very interesting to hear from the party opposite that it now supports all the spending we are doing, even though it did not support a single one of the difficult measures we took to raise money for public services. It is very interesting that she opposed the Employment Rights Bill, because we again see that her party does not support a single measure to improve the lives of working people.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Well, I think it is true.
The noble Baroness asked specifically about the tax system. No additional pensioner will be brought into the tax system because of this change; we can give that assurance to the House today.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, asked about recouping payments from deceased people. HMRC has established processes in place to recoup payments and finalise the tax affairs of deceased people, so nothing will change because of this policy. This is not a taxable payment. We assure the House that, if this is the only outstanding tax charge remaining from a deceased person, HMRC will not pursue anyone just for this specific amount of money. The noble Lord also asked whether we will uprate the threshold of £35,000. We will set that out in the Budget.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, as someone who has spoken from these Benches against this proposal, I very much welcome the Government’s decision. The way the change has been characterised is a bit misleading. Does the Minister not agree that this represents a rejection of means testing and a return to universal benefits, with, quite rightly, the cost being handled for those on high incomes through a redistributive tax system?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for his support for the change—I was going to say in the means test, and that is obviously exactly what his question is about. I am not sure I am expert enough to engage in a debate with him about the definition of a means test. Clearly, we are raising the level at which pensioners are entitled to and benefit from this policy. As he says, it will be paid universally to all pensioners, and those with an income over £35,000 will have the winter fuel payment recovered by HMRC through the tax system.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
My Lords, this is certainly a shambolic way of conducting a government, but otherwise, I find myself unfortunately rather out of step with the exchanges so far.
The winter fuel payment had nothing to do with the level of fuel bills. It was paid to everybody, rich or poor, as a prize for reaching a certain age, which is why, at the last general election that I fought successfully as a candidate, the Conservative Party manifesto contained a commitment to abolish it. Unfortunately, we never got round to that.
The Government failed to make their case, which was exploited very successfully by Nigel Farage, so now they are introducing an extraordinarily generous means test. I quite accept that this should be means tested, but we are now going to pay it out to some of the better off households in this country. Does the Minister not accept that if the Government can somewhere find £1.5 billion to spend on the alleviation of poverty, there are very many more sensible ways of spending it that might help relieve the quite excessive levels of poverty that exist in our society at the moment? Meanwhile, I thank him for the £300 that I shall be receiving in a week or two’s time, although apparently, I shall be giving it back eventually.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. I am sorry that he does not share the consensus in the House on the new policy position. He is absolutely right in his characterisation of the policy. I do not know what he earns, so it is not right for me to comment on that, but if he earns above the £35,000 threshold, it will be recovered through the tax system. He describes it as an extremely generous means test. It is kind of him to say that, but it is in line with average earnings and we have decided that that is the appropriate level it should be paid at.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I declare an interest as co-chair of the all-party group on older persons. Is the Minister aware that Age UK, which really understands this issue and campaigned on it, welcomes unreservedly the Government’s decision—unlike the Conservatives, who say that they welcome the decision but would not find the money to pay for it? [Interruption.] That is exactly what the noble Baroness said. Will the Minister use his undoubted talents and tell them how they can reconcile that difference?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for his question. I pay tribute to him and to Age UK for the campaigning work they have done, not least to increase pension credit uptake. There was a record increase this year in the take-up of pension credit. An additional 60,000 people are now claiming pension credit, which is incredibly welcome.
We have listened to the concerns raised by Age UK, among others, about the level of the means test. We have now acted to ensure that, although we are still means testing the payment, we are raising the threshold to extend eligibility, so that this winter, more pensioners will be able to benefit from it. Nine million pensioners will now receive it—more than three-quarters of pensioners in total.
My noble friend is absolutely right about the party opposite: they are more than happy to spend the money, but they are less keen on raising it.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, would it not be better to incorporate the allowance into the pension, which is taxable, making it easier and fairer to administer?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
That may be one option, but it is not the option we have chosen.
Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)
My Lords, as one of the few supporters of the original measure—like my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Clarke—I feel the Minister’s pain. But when the Treasury has to retreat, it is best to concede more rather than less; in that respect only, I congratulate the Minister on the proposal. Can he provide an assurance that, as and when the Government have the resources to consider further tax and benefit changes, they will prioritise working-age families rather than the elderly, who have benefited from considerable government largesse, not least through the triple lock?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his qualified support for the policy. The Government absolutely know that their number one concern and mission is to increase the living standards of working people and to do so through increasing growth in the economy, and that absolutely will be the focus of our policies going forward.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the position of the Minister, and it was also good to hear praise for his leadership from the Benches opposite. But does he agree that it is unfortunate to hear attempts to pitch pensioners against workers’ interests in fair pay and stronger employment rights, not least because the workers of today will become the pensioners of tomorrow, and we know that low pay, weak security and poor rights lead to poverty in old age?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend and I agree with everything that she says. I will just add to what she said at the end: low pay and insecurity at work are detrimental to growth, and obviously we need growth in our economy to pay for the benefits that we want to pay to pensioners and others. Once again, the party opposite calls for the growth but they are not willing to support the policies that get us there.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, when the Chancellor was doing her various media interviews setting out the retreat on this policy, she rather unbelievably tried to suggest that it was done not because it was incredibly unpopular but because somehow the economy has got rather better since last year. Given that we have seen inflation up, unemployment up and the OBR slashing its growth forecast, the Minister should get some personal credit for not trying to insist on that nonsense in your Lordships’ House. When the Treasury analyses the cost of both the original policy and its reversal and takes into account the extra people claiming pension credit and the cost of reversing this policy, can he set out, either today or at the fiscal event, whether this whole set of decisions has saved or cost the taxpayer money?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. On the facts about growth, we inherited forecasts from the previous Government for 2025 growth where we would have been seventh out of seven in the G7. In quarter 1 of this year we were first out of seven in the G7, so we will not take any lectures from him about the growth performance of the economy. He asked about the costings of the policy. The costings of the previous policy included assumptions about take-up of pension credit, so that pension credit increase figure was already in the costings for the previous policy. The costings of this policy will be certified by the OBR and scored at the Autumn Budget, and we will set out what he asks for.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I commend my noble friend the Minister on the courageous decision to make the necessary changes to the winter fuel payment and bring some joy to many pensioners. The Government should be congratulated on actually listening to what the people are saying. In that respect and under the principle of parity as it relates to the payment of benefits in Northern Ireland, can the Minister outline what discussions have taken place between the Treasury, the Department for Communities and the Department of Finance in Northern Ireland about ensuring that pensioners—I declare an interest—qualify for this restoration of the winter fuel payment?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for her question. As she knows much better than I do, winter fuel payments are transferred in Northern Ireland. The Minister for Pensions spoke to his counterpart in the Northern Ireland Government yesterday. We are of course very conscious of the need for sufficient lead-in time so that the necessary policies can be put in place in good time for this winter. The Northern Ireland Executive will receive a mechanical uplift in their funding as a result of this change in England and Wales.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
I welcome the new policy, but does the Minister agree that the public would find it helpful if some thinking was given by the Government about the choice of the figure of £35,000? I have no feelings one way or the other, but I think the general public might find it helpful to find some kind of rationale behind this figure. Why was it not higher or lower? Why that particular figure?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, £35,000 is broadly equivalent to average earnings. It means that 9 million pensioners will now benefit from this. That is roughly three-quarters of pensioners.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, last week the Intergenerational Foundation released a report that found that the public spending gap between children and pensioners has widened by 170%. That means that in 2023-24 pensioners received around £31,000, in comparison to children at £18,000. The winter fuel allowance has meant that there are fewer pensioners in poverty, and that is a good thing, but when we look at child poverty stats, they are almost double those of pensioners in poverty. Will His Majesty’s Government review abolishing the child benefit cap?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question, and I absolutely share her commitment to tackle child poverty in this country. We have made initial steps with the free school meals policy that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education set out last week. I hope that the spending review will have more to say on that subject, and on the child poverty strategy published alongside the Budget.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I have two points. First, can the Minister say how many more pensioners will now have to submit a tax return? Secondly, this policy is full of anomalies. To give just one example, somebody who has saved diligently since ISAs began will have a portfolio of about £400,000. The income from that is not reported on any tax return at all. Therefore, somebody with £35,000-plus—at least £20,000, £30,000 or £40,000 more—can still get winter fuel payment under the Government’s announcement. How are the Government going to force people to disclose the income from ISAs and other tax-free savings?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Well, the tax system stays exactly as it is now, so I do not quite understand how my noble friend’s question arises. As I said before, no one will be brought into the tax system as a result of this policy who currently is not in the tax system.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, I welcome the reversal of the decision on winter fuel payments, having spoken, like others, cautioning against so many pensioners who are vulnerable and in need being deprived of it—not against the principle of changing it and restricting it to some degree. I just wonder whether, in terms of lessons learned, a more general principle might be acknowledged that in future cuts, the Government will not look to making them from vulnerable or disabled people.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
As I have said all along, we have listened to the concerns about the level of means tests. We are still means-testing the winter fuel payment, because we think it is right that the very richest pensioners do not have their fuel bills subsidised when there are other calls on public spending, but I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for supporting the policy now to extend that eligibility so that this winter more pensioners are able to benefit from it.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare my interests, and I am glad that the Government have listened. I welcome the undoing of a terrible wrong. Can the Minister confirm that the Government estimate that about 50,000 more pensioners were in poverty last winter and 100,000 more pensioners ended up in A&E? Does this not show the difficulties of making short-term changes, without proper planning, which affect some of the most vulnerable people in our country? I ask for a commitment that, first, there will not be a consideration of means testing of the state pension itself and, secondly, the Inland Revenue’s helplines for simple assessment will be sufficiently staffed so that pensioners worried about whether they are going to have to pay back this money will get answers in a reasonable period of time.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am happy to give the noble Baroness those commitments.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, the Opposition suggested that the Government have put pensioners behind the NHS and teachers. Does the Minister agree that the Tories do not seem to want to tell teachers or NHS staff that they want them to be poorer?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My noble friend is obviously right to point out that the party opposite has consistently criticised the public sector pay rises that we have given.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, following on from the question asked by the right reverend Prelate, I hope that the Minister is aware that roughly 750,000 pensioners on pension credit and therefore eligible for the winter fuel allowance applied for it last winter but have not yet had it. Will he look at this problem?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I will look at that and discuss it with my noble friend Lady Sherlock.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, I perhaps take a slightly different view on this. Of course, I welcome people being able to get their winter fuel payments. We are still applying the pension credit, which is absolutely right. I do not know what everybody else in this House who got winter fuel payments did with them, but I donated mine to charity; I certainly did not need that £300, and there are plenty of others like me.
If I have a concern about government policy, it is this. Nobody seems to recognise that pensioners benefited very well from the triple lock. I do not agree with the triple lock. I may be in a minority, but that money could be used, as people have said, for alleviating child poverty—probably one of the biggest challenges that we face. I am not expecting the Minister to do an about-turn on that one; I am just making a comment. When we go for the triple lock, there is an expensive cost. Tomorrow, we will hear the Chancellor make known how she will balance that budget. I welcome that people on pension credit—who we wanted to claim pension credit—will be able to get their winter fuel payments. In that respect, this is good. I have only expressed my one area of concern.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for what he says. Over 12 million pensioners are now benefiting across the UK from the triple lock. Their state pension is set to increase by up to £1,900 over the course of this Parliament. Almost 60,000 extra households are now receiving the pension credit that they are entitled to, which I think we can all agree is a very good thing. He said that he donated his winter fuel payments to charity; he is welcome to continue to do that if his income is below £35,000. If it is under that and he wants to opt out of receiving it, he is very welcome to do so. We will bring forward proposals before the Summer Recess enabling him to do that.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, when your Lordships’ House debated the original changes to the winter fuel payment, it was suggested that we should not means-test the winter fuel payment but tax it instead. The noble Baroness the Minister rejected that option, saying that it failed on two fronts: it did not meet the savings test or the fairness test. If the Government had listened to your Lordships’ House then, millions of pensioners who did not receive their winter fuel payment this winter would have done so. What has changed in terms of the practical ability to implement this policy now compared with when it was first suggested by your Lordships’ House?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question, but to be clear: we are not taxing it. We are recovering it through the tax system, which is a different policy from the one that she is describing.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
Of the 12 million pensioners, how many are millionaires? Is it true that it is 3 million?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I do not have those numbers to hand, but I will see whether they exist. If they do, I will write to my noble friend.
Employment Rights Bill
Tuesday 10th June 2025
(2 days, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberEmployment Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 81-VIII Eighth Marshalled list for Committee - (6 Jun 2025)
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“(2A) Where an access agreement relates to a hospital (within the meaning of section 275 of the National Health Service Act 2006), physical entry may be refused where—(a) patient safety, infection control, or clinical operations would be adversely affected,(b) the access purpose can reasonably be achieved by alternative means of communication, or(c) access would unreasonably disrupt urgent or time- sensitive medical activity.(2B) In determining whether access is reasonable in the context of a hospital, the Central Arbitration Committee must give significant weight to the factors set out in subsection (2A).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment makes special provision for hospital workplaces, allowing physical access to be refused where it would impact patient safety, infection control, or clinical operations, or where access purposes can be met by alternative means. It requires the Central Arbitration Committee to give significant weight to these factors when considering access in hospital settings.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, this amendment would introduce necessary and proportionate safeguards to ensure that patient safety, clinical operations and infection control were not compromised by well-intentioned but potentially disruptive physical access to hospital environments by trade union representatives. Hospitals are not ordinary workplaces. They are places where critical decisions are made every minute, where vulnerable patients receive life-saving care and where medical professionals must operate in conditions that are tightly controlled in terms of both hygiene and procedure. Permitting physical access to union representatives who are not part of the clinical team and not governed by the same professional or ethical codes introduces risks that simply cannot be ignored.
These are not theoretical concerns. Infection control protocols exist precisely because hospitals deal daily with immunocompromised patients, open surgical wounds and the spread of dangerous pathogens. Entry by any individual not trained in and accountable to those protocols could result in the transmission of infections, the contamination of sterile areas or the unintended exposure of patients to harm. Moreover, hospital environments are highly sensitive to disruption. In intensive care units, emergency departments, operating theatres and maternity wards, even small delays or distractions can have life-or-death consequences. The presence of non-essential personnel in those spaces risks delaying clinical teams, congesting movement corridors, or interfering with time-critical procedures.
Physical access is not just a logistical matter; it can be a direct threat to a hospital’s ability to function safely and effectively. The amendment does not seek to deny trade unions the ability to communicate with members or fulfil their lawful functions. On the contrary, it would explicitly allow access to be withheld only where the access purpose could reasonably be achieved by alternative means; and in the 21st century, such alternatives, as we heard last week, are abundant. Virtual meetings, secure digital communications, designated liaison officers or scheduled engagement in non-clinical areas would all be viable channels for meaningful trade union engagement.
Hospitals are already under enormous pressure, so it is neither safe nor fair to expect them to open their most sensitive environments when those same objectives can be achieved by safer, more appropriate methods. Hospitals also bear legal and regulatory duties that cannot be suspended. Clinical professionals are legally obliged to safeguard patients and maintain secure environments. To require hospitals to grant physical access to non-clinical actors where such access could conflict with those duties would place hospital management in a difficult, nay impossible, position, risking litigation, regulatory sanction and, above all, the trust of the public.
The amendment further recognises the importance of proportionality. It does not seek to impose an outright prohibition; it would simply require the Central Arbitration Committee, when deciding on access disputes, to give significant weight to those clinical and operational factors. That is the right balance, respecting the legitimate role of trade unions while upholding the sanctity of hospital care. To oppose this amendment would be to ignore the distinct and high-stakes nature of hospital environments. No one disputes the value of union representation, but the right to organise must never override the duty to protect.
Hospitals are not platforms for industrial theatre; they are sanctuaries of healing staffed by professionals who need order, safety and focus to save lives. We have a duty to shield them from any policy that risks disrupting that mission. I urge the Committee to support the amendment and uphold the principle that access, however important, must never come at the expense of patient welfare. I beg to move.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for his amendment and I hope, perhaps, that the lack of contributions means that we will make some good progress in Committee today.
Lord Katz (Lab)
On the noise from a sedentary position, I mean in numerical terms, if not in substantive debate.
As the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, just outlined, Amendment 213AA seeks to makes specific provisions for access into hospital workplaces by specifying circumstances in which access may be reasonably refused. It also requires the CAC to consider and give more weight to these factors when deciding on access.
As we discussed last week, the Secretary of State will be able, through regulations, to set the circumstances that the CAC must take into account when making decisions on access, including potentially complex access arrangements in workplaces such as hospitals and other healthcare settings. These areas of detail will be subject to public consultation before the regulations are made and we will invite all interested parties to provide their views on these matters when we launch our consultation.
It is a complex policy area that will involve detailed practical considerations. It is not as though, at the moment, we do not have strong and healthy engagement with a number of different trade unions in all manner of healthcare settings, including hospitals. We have trade union access, involvement and activity in complex workplaces, including hospitals. Special consideration is given to the importance of keeping them sterile and safe, particularly for those who have immunocompromised conditions and, indeed, anybody who is a patient in that setting. This can and has been achieved, and it is perfectly reasonable for the CAC, following consultation, to make regulations that set this. As I said, this is not a policy area that is not already well rehearsed and understood.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, is right that hospitals are particularly special settings but they are also workplaces. The NHS employs large numbers of people and has a very mature industrial relations framework within it. It is certainly not implausible that, in consultation with all interested parties, the CAC could come to a perfectly reasonable compromise on access.
The Government also feel that it is not appropriate to make specific provisions for just this one kind of workplace—hospitals—prior to consultation. We are talking about hospital workplaces as opposed to, say, general practitioner or dental surgeries or other areas where you have regard to clinical safety and the sorts of considerations that the noble Lord talked about. Given that, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his answer, but a little disappointed. His words largely give away why the Government should accept this amendment. I believe he just used the phrase “reasonable compromise” with regard to the Central Arbitration Committee, whereas the amendment just says
“must give significant weight to the factors set out in subsection (2A)”.
The practical impact of both those phrases is much the same.
So I am disappointed that the Government have chosen to reject this amendment, which is modest, carefully constructed and aimed at protecting one of our most vital public services. We were not asking for a sweeping exclusion, nor undermining the rights of trade unions or seeking—to use the noble Lord’s phraseology—to restrict involvement. We proposed a targeted safeguard that simply recognises the unique, high-risk nature of hospital environments. I will not press the point now, but we reserve the right to return to this in due course. For now, I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
“Right to switch off in relation to trade union representatives(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended in accordance with subsection (2).(2) After section 69 (right to terminate membership of trade union), insert— “69A Right to switch off in relation to trade union representativesIn every contract of membership of a trade union, whether made before or after the coming into force of this section, a term conferring a right on the member to refuse to monitor, read or respond to contact (or attempted contact) by a trade union representative outside their working hours shall be implied.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause confers a right to switch off on trade union members in relation to contact from trade union representatives.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 215 and 332 are in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. They insert a right for trade union members to switch off—to ignore contact from union representatives outside their own working hours.
Let me be clear at the outset that we on these Benches do not see this as an unimportant, “nice to have” option. It is a necessary safeguard in the context of a Bill which is probably doing more than any legislation in living memory to grant privileges to trade unions and inflate union power and will encourage aggressive recruitment regardless of whether or not workers want it. This amendment goes to the very heart of a deeper question we have to ask ourselves: whom is the trade union there to serve—the worker or itself? If we are honest, the Bill increasingly seems more interested in empowering the institution than protecting the individual. The Bill certainly tilts the playing field, not towards workers as individuals but towards union structures as institutions, and it does so with no meaningful safeguards, no checks and balances, and no regard for the fact that many workers today want something very different from what the traditional trade union model is capable of offering.
The Bill is not neutral nor balanced, and it is not simply updating outdated frameworks or modernising collective bargaining: I believe it is a deliberate attempt to revive old-school trade unionism in a dramatically changed industrial context by granting unions not legitimate rights but privileges, whether or not the workers want them. Through expanded access rights, new entitlements and a raft of concessions, the Government are artificially breathing life into organisations that are, frankly, no longer representative of most working people. Union membership has been declining for decades, not because of external barriers but, I believe, because of internal obsolescence. The nature of work has changed, and expectations have changed, yet trade unions have not. Instead of accepting that reality, this Government have decided to push unions back into the workplace, not by making them more attractive but by giving them more power. We know what happens when institutions are given power without accountability: they use it and, often, abuse it.
This amendment is therefore a response to that risk. It says clearly and unapologetically that, even if the Government want to empower unions, individual workers should still be able to set boundaries, especially in their own time. The pressure that comes from union representatives is not always welcome, and it is certainly not always proportionate, especially now that, under the new powers granted by the Bill, I am sure we will see a rise in out-of-hours messaging, campaign pushes, late-night emails, WhatsApp group bombardments, friendly reminders to attend meetings or urgent invitations to back a ballot. It will be relentless, not because it has to be but because unions will be under pressure themselves to prove their relevance, grow their numbers and mobilise more quickly and visibly than ever.
The burden of that spurious urgency will fall squarely on the ordinary—often reluctant—member, who will have joined the union for protection, not politics, and who just wants to do their job and get on with their life. That member deserves a basic right: the right to draw a line. This amendment gives them that right. It says that, outside your working hours, you cannot be expected to respond to union communications, not because you are hostile to unions or are trying to undermine solidarity but because your time is your own—and because respect for the individual must come before deference to the organisation.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendments 215 and 332, both in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. Amendment 215 proposes a new clause to grant trade union members a statutory “right to switch off”; that is, to disengage from contact initiated by trade union representatives.
It raises the wider question of work/life balance and members’ autonomy. That is not a bad thing to raise and probe in this amendment. However, the caricature by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, of a typical union member is a little fanciful. When I was a shop steward, I certainly would not be ringing up union members at 8 o’clock when England were playing football against somebody. I would have got very short shrift and probably would not have been the shop steward the following week. That is the power of trade unions: they can remove and add shop stewards on a whim.
We just need to be a little bit grown-up about the modern trade unionist. We are living in a different age now. It would be wrong for me to say that communication does not happen, but it is now via text, X and WhatsApp, and that is completely acceptable. Where the line is drawn is around giving people a statutory right to switch off, or not. I think it is down to individual members to decide whether they want to be able to be contacted. It should be for the members themselves to decide that, rather than there having to be some statutory right. It is not for me to pass judgment on the desirability or otherwise of it, but I would be interested to understand the rationale and the evidence underpinning the need for such measures.
Amendment 332 is more technical in nature, providing for the commencement of these provisions a year after the Act receives Royal Assent. This delayed implementation may allow for guidance to be prepared or for institutions to adapt. With that in mind, I would like to hear the Minister’s response to both these things—bearing in mind that, at the end of the day, trade unions exist because of their members; if members do not like a trade union, they can leave a trade union. That point has not been brought up anywhere in this House by anybody. You are free and able to join a trade union. You are also free and able to leave a trade union.
I know that, in 1973 and 1974, people did leave the GMB union over some policies that the union had. It was not an impossible thing to do. They were still treated fairly; they were given full consultation and assistance. It was for us to persuade them to come back into the union, which nine times out of 10 they did. It is not always a one-way street. I would hope that the Conservatives understand that unions are controlled by members.
We have annual congresses. One of the greatest things we used to do as the Lancashire region was to overturn the executive once a year in conferences; to us, that was the object of conference. It did not go down well with John Edmonds and the senior management team. I would stand there berating them for the poor pay of gas workers and objecting to a 2% pay rise, and I would get full support. Then I would have to go and see Mr Edmonds. The words he once said to me were, “You control the union for one week and we control it for the other 51 weeks, so I will let you have this week, David. Now leave”. I have deleted and added words there to avoid using any language that would be unfit for this House.
Again, it is a balancing act. I do hope that the Minister will address it in that manner and not just ignore amendments that come in from the Benches opposite. There is something behind the amendments. They are probing amendments and we are just trying to get the flavour of where the Government sit on membership and the unions, with regard to consultation. We spent a few hours—a lot of hours—the other night talking about union rights and members’ rights. I think this issue just touches on the end of that. I can see why it was not raised in that group, but it is still something that needs explaining a bit more clearly.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for his very entertaining contribution, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, for speaking to Amendments 215 and 332 in his name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe.
The proposed new clauses would create a right in primary legislation for trade union members to switch off from contact from trade union representatives. As far as I am aware, there is not any demand to introduce such a requirement on trade unions. I have not heard this from my colleagues, or from trade union members, or from any worker, or indeed from any employer or employer organisation that I have spoken to lately.
It is difficult to see what benefit or purpose such an obligation inserted into membership contracts might serve. Currently, there is no obligation for a trade union member to reply to communications from their trade union, as was ably set out by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard. There is nothing stopping a member ignoring them or telling them to **** off.
This Government are committed to the well-being and positive work-life balance of all workers. The Employment Rights Bill is proof of this commitment, with relevant measures including making flexible working the default except where not reasonably feasible. This will help employees and employers to agree solutions which work for both parties.
I say politely to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that I reject his allegation of trade union influence and power interfering with people’s lives. As it stands, every member can ignore the messages and communications —whoever has approached them—outside work. There is no evidence that this is currently happening. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to reflect on that and to be careful with some of the pretty harsh words he has said. I invite him to withdraw his Amendment 215.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord has to face the reality of the situation when looking at today’s world, where trade unions represent only 12% of private sector workers. He tells the Committee that this provision is not necessary now, but we are entering a new era. It is one that I recall vividly, when I first came into the House of Commons, just under 50 years ago, at a time when the trade unions dominated lives to a huge extent. Talking to some of my friends in the trade union movement, I sense that they look forward to the day when the trade unions will re-emerge in the private sector and become again dominant in public life.
I too was very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, for talking about work-life balance. I am rather sad that the noble Lord in responding did not really get into that. That is what this amendment is all about. In sharing with us his experiences in the GMB, the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, put it in context. I have, in the past, done a lot of cases for the GMB; it is a wonderful, friendly society that looks after people in a huge way. This amendment is not ideological, it is not radical and it would not weaken unions. It would not restrict collective bargaining or impose new administrative burdens on trade unions. All it and the subsequent amendment seek to do is to offer trade union members the right—the dignity—to say, “Not now. Not after hours. Not in my living room. Not when I am at home, off duty and seeking the same privacy and peace of mind that every working person deserves”. We are looking forward to that day, or are we?
If these new provisions give additional power to unions in the Bill, why do the Government not stop for a moment to ask how this will affect ordinary members? Not union leaders, not officials, not full-time organisers, but the actual members who just want to get on with their lives, in peace. That is what this amendment is about—not disruption, not dilution, but balance. I fully accept that many of these members will not complain about out-of-hours contact from a union, but not because they agree with it but because almost certainly they will be tired and will not want confrontation, as they worry that pushing back could lead to exclusion, being labelled or being isolated within the very structure that they joined for protection.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“Section 56: consultation requirement(1) Before section 56 comes into force, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as they consider appropriate, including—(a) representatives of trade unions, and(b) representatives of employers,on the use of digital communication methods as part of access agreements under section 56.(2) The Secretary of State must publish the outcome of that consultation.(3) Section 56 may not come into force until the outcome of the consultation under subsection (2) has been published.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult on the role of digital communication in trade union access agreements and to publish the outcome before the relevant provisions come into force.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 215ZA is in my name and seeks to insert a new clause following Clause 56. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult relevant stakeholders, including representatives of both employers and trade unions, on the use of digital communication methods as part of trade union access agreements under Clause 56. Furthermore, it would require that the outcome of that consultation be published and that the provisions of Clause 56 may not come into force until that has happened.
Let me say at the outset that this is a moderate, practical and entirely necessary amendment. It does not challenge the principle of union access. It does not frustrate the core intent of the legislation. What it does is inject a degree of transparency, rigour and, crucially, consent into a provision that, as it stands, risks doing significant unintended harm to employers and employees alike.
I refer to the remarks made last week by the noble Lord, Lord Katz, during Committee. I thought they were illuminating and, frankly, somewhat concerning. The noble Lord assured us that the Government intend to consult further on the digital provisions. But here is the critical point: the legislation as currently drafted allows Clause 56 to come into force before that consultation has occurred and before any regulations are laid. In effect, this Committee is being asked to pass a framework of legal obligations that have real-word consequences for access to workplaces and digital systems without knowing the rules that will underpin them. This is legislation in reverse, because it enables powers first and critical definitions and safeguards later.
Let us take the words of the noble Lord, Lord Katz, directly. He said that
“the precise details of how this will work in practice will be set out in secondary legislation following further consultation”.
But secondary legislation, as we have discussed many times over the course of this Bill and others that this Government are putting through, is not subject to the same scrutiny as primary legislation. It is not amendable. It can be laid quietly and approved via negative procedures. That is why we must build the consultation obligation directly into the primary legislation. Without it, we risk leaving employers, particularly small and medium-sized employers, exposed to obligations they neither understand nor have had the opportunity to influence.
The noble Lord acknowledged that digital access was not included in the original drafting of the Bill and so was not debated during the Commons Committee stage. It was inserted at a late stage in the legislative process. When pressed on this by my noble friend Lady Coffey last week, the noble Lord could offer no justification for the timing or the rationale behind that late change. Instead, we were told that
“in 2025, the idea that access to a workforce would not include digital channels is, frankly, fanciful”.—[Official Report, 5/6/25; cols. 984 and 985.]
Again, those were the noble Lord’s words.
That may well be the case, but policy made on assumptions and generalities is not good policy. What exactly will “digital access” mean in practice? Will unions be allowed to email employees directly? Will they be granted access to internal mailing lists? What about secure internal platforms or workplace intranets? Will employers be compelled to share employee contact details or act as intermediaries in the distribution of union materials? What safeguards will exist to protect commercially sensitive information, particularly in small firms that operate on a single device or a shared system?
My noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley also raised a very pertinent point last week. He said:
“The Government are asking the House of Lords tonight to pass legislation that will allow a third person the right to access an employee’s computer … without any controls, references or parameters”.—[Official Report, 5/6/25; cols. 984-85.]
That is not mere rhetoric but a credible reading of the Bill in its current form. If that is not the Government’s intent, we need clarity in law, not just reassurance from the Dispatch Box.
The noble Lord, Lord Katz, tried to deflect concerns by pointing to data protection legislation, but as many in this Committee know only too well, data protection laws regulate the use of personal data; they do not in themselves govern the parameters of access rights under trade union law. Nor do they address the central concern here: that employees and unions need agreed, defined rules of engagement for digital contact in the context of access rights. Indeed, the Government’s apparent position is that all this can be worked out later. That is simply not acceptable. When legislation interferes with the operation of businesses, the integrity of secure systems and the balance of power between employers and unions, it is not enough to say, “Trust us to sort it out in regulations”.
Let me also address the claim that consultation will happen eventually. Of course we welcome that promise, but good process means consulting before rules take effect, not after. It means asking those affected what is reasonable before forcing them to comply, and that is all this amendment does. It would require the Secretary of State to consult relevant stakeholders, including trade unions and employers; that the outcome of that consultation be published in the interests of transparency and trust; and that the relevant part of the legislation, Clause 56, cannot come into force until that is done. That would give everyone fair notice. It would ensure meaningful engagement and prevent the scenario we are currently hurtling towards: a system through which access rights could be imposed by the Central Arbitration Committee, including digital access, without any shared understanding of what that entails.
Access must be delivered in a way that is workable, proportionate and appropriate in each workplace context. In many modern workplaces, digital contact is indeed the most effective route, but in some environments, especially among some SMEs, it also represents a point of vulnerability both for the operations and for data security. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for Amendment 215ZA, which seeks to commit the Government to consult with trade unions and representatives of employers on the detail of Clause 56, which covers trade union right of access. In particular, it would require the Government to consult on the use of digital communication as part of access agreements.
I can confirm that the Government have already committed to consulting with both trade unions and employers’ representatives on the framework and conditions of access, including on the details of that digital access. I can confirm that we will not bring forward secondary legislation on this before we have consulted. While I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling this amendment, and I look forward to the upcoming debates on Schedule 6 and Clause 57, I must ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Verma (Con)
When the consultations are going on, how much consultation is being done with businesses from the black and ethnic minority communities? As I keep repeating in this House, I have been speaking to lots of businesses and I have yet to come across one that feels that it is being consulted.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I can assure the noble Baroness that all the main business organisations are consulted as a matter of course, and many of our consultations are available more widely. I take on board her question about the black community and I will ensure that, where it has representative organisations, they are included.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for her answer. Just to be clear, as I understand it, that means that this aspect of the Bill will not be commenced until consultation has taken place. As my noble friend has just suggested, this begs the question of exactly who will be consulted and how. I look forward to hearing more from the Minister on that. I do not expect her to be able to answer that now, but it would be very welcome if she could outline the details of this consultation in a letter in due course. However, I am grateful that she has committed to having the consultation before the commencement of this provision. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the opposition to Clause 57 standing part of the Bill and to Schedule 6 being agreed, tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough. I also support Amendment 215AZA to Schedule 6, which proposes inserting
“other than in the usual course of the employer’s business”
after “units”. This is all part of a much wider debate that we are moving towards on trade union access and recognition. The amendment may appear narrow in scope, but it addresses a serious flaw in the current drafting which could lead to unintended consequences that undermine the objectives of the Bill and the practical realities of the modern workplace.
The purpose of the provision as drafted is to prevent employers undermining trade union recognition by artificially inflating the size of a bargaining unit with new employees after the application day. That objective is entirely sound. Employers should not be able to frustrate or delay the process of recognition by manipulating the workforce in bad faith. While the provision seeks to target such behaviour, however, the current wording does so in a way that ignores the economic and operational realities facing most employers.
In the vast majority of businesses, employees join and leave as a matter of course. Recruitment is not a manipulative tactic—it is a normal, often essential part of running an organisation. Particularly in sectors with high turnover, employers must routinely recruit to maintain service levels, respond to demand or support business growth. But under the schedule as currently worded, any new employee who joins the bargaining unit after the application date may automatically be excluded from consideration, regardless of whether that recruitment was completely ordinary and unconnected to the union process.
This risks creating a perverse incentive for employers to delay or freeze hiring during the recognition process—something that may last nine months or more in practice. Employers would be put in an impossible position: either pause recruitment at significant operational and economic cost, or continue recruiting and face the uncertainty of whether those employees count in the CAC’s consideration. It also risks unjustly penalising new employees, who, through no fault of their own, would be deprived of representation in the collective bargaining process simply because of the timing of their hire.
This kind of rigidity does not reflect how businesses operate or how workforces evolve. The schedule, without amendment, assumes a static picture of the workplace—one frozen at the moment of application. That may make theoretical sense in a static model, but in reality it is artificial and unworkable. In doing so, it creates uncertainty for all parties and opens the door to protracted disputes about who should or should not be included in a bargaining unit.
Furthermore, the Central Arbitration Committee is already well equipped to monitor changes in workforce composition. It regularly requires updates to information throughout the recognition process. Employers and unions alike are accustomed to this and operate within it. The idea that including new, routinely hired employees in a bargaining unit would overwhelm or undermine the CAC process is not supported by the CAC’s own established practice. The amendment, therefore, does not introduce an undue burden; it aligns the legislation with how recognition procedures already work in practice.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his keen interest in and amendments to Clause 57 and Schedule 6. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, has set out his opposition to both the clause and schedule.
Clause 57 and Schedule 6 speak to our commitment to strengthening collective bargaining and trade union recognition. We believe that strong trade unions are essential for tackling insecurity, inequality, discrimination, enforcement and low pay. Our view is that the existing legal framework needs to be simplified, so that workers have security in the workplace by having a more meaningful right to organise through their trade unions. As we have heard, to achieve this, the clause and schedule remove the current requirement for a union to have at least 40% of the workforce in the proposed bargaining unit supporting union recognition. In future, unions will need only a simple majority in a recognition ballot to win.
The current requirement for a union to demonstrate at the application stage that it is likely there will be a majority for union recognition poses a significant hurdle in modern workplaces, which are increasingly fragmented. That is why the clause deletes the requirement for a union to demonstrate, on application to the CAC, that it is likely to win a recognition ballot. In future, unions will need to show only that they have 10% membership of the proposed bargaining unit for their application for recognition to be accepted by the CAC.
We also wish to consider whether the current 10% membership requirement on application should be lowered in future. The clause therefore provides a power to enable the Secretary of State to make affirmative regulations, which we will consult on, to amend the 10% membership requirement in future, within the parameters of 2% to 10%, as we have set out in Schedule 6.
Clause 57 and Schedule 6 also address unfair practices and access arrangements in the process of recognition and derecognition of trade unions. I hope this satisfies noble Lords who oppose this clause and schedule that these measures strengthen collective bargaining rights.
Before I turn to the amendments to Schedule 6 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, it is worth noting that the Government have also tabled amendments to it. We will debate them shortly, and noble Lords may wish to consider them for the context of today’s debates.
Amendments 215AZA, 216AA and 216BB would carve out recruitment in the usual course of the employer’s business from the freeze on the bargaining unit provided for in the Bill. This is well intentioned. Indeed, we consulted on options for a more targeted approach to preventing mass recruitment into the bargaining unit with the aim to thwart a recognition application. However, after considering responses to the consultation, we concluded that a more targeted approach is not workable, as it would be difficult to establish a sufficient level of proof to determine the purpose for which workers had been recruited. In addition, a new obligation on employers to demonstrate their recruitment intent would be a disproportionate and unfair burden, and it could result in employers having to divulge commercially sensitive information.
Amendment 215AA, at least in some cases, seeks to reinstate the 10% membership test on application. It also—again, at least in some cases—would remove the references in Schedule 6 that exclude workers recruited following receipt by the CAC of a trade union recognition application from counting for the purposes of the recognition process.
I will set out my reasoning in relation to the 10% membership threshold on application and why we are including a power in the Bill to allow Ministers to vary the membership threshold from 10% to 2% in the next debate. New Schedule A1 should be consistent on this principle. I refer noble Lords to what I have said previously on this issue. I will also set out why we believe employers should no longer be able to recruit workers into the bargaining unit for the purpose of thwarting a trade union recognition application. I am steadfast that this reform is necessary to ensure that the process is fair and must not be undermined by what could be underhand tactics.
I turn to Amendments 215DA to 215DC, 215EA, 215FA to 215FF, 215FI, 215GA, 215HA and 216BA. Did I get that wrong?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
These amendments seek to delay when unions would be able to request access during the recognition process until after the bargaining unit had been agreed or determined. While I understand what the noble Lord is attempting to achieve with these amendments, employers have access to the workforce throughout the recognition process. The Government’s view is that unions should have access to the workplace as well from the point where the CAC accepts the application for recognition. This enables the unions to also have access to the workplace for a time closer to the start of the recognition process.
Amendments 215FG, 215FH, 216GA and 216MA seek to remove specific unfair practices from Schedule 6. They seem to seek to allow employers or unions to make an outcome-specific offer or use undue influence with a view to influencing the recognition application. These unfair practices are of long standing and are already set out in the legislation currently in force. The use of undue influence could, for example, include the threat or the use of violence. We therefore see no argument for removing these prohibitions on these unfair practices.
Amendment 216 seeks to reverse changes in the Bill by reinstating the requirement that unions meet the 40% support threshold in addition to a majority in a statutory union recognition ballot. I remind noble Lords that this was a manifesto commitment set out clearly in our plan to make work pay. We are committed to strengthening collective bargaining rights and trade union recognition. We believe that strong trade unions are essential for tackling insecurity, inequality, discrimination, enforcement and low pay. Our view is that the existing legal framework needs to be simplified so that workers have a more meaningful right to organise through their trade unions.
To achieve this, we are removing the current requirement for a union to have at least 40% of the workforce in the proposed bargaining unit supporting union recognition. In future, unions will need only a simple majority in a recognition ballot to win. We believe that the 40% support threshold represents too high a hurdle in modern workplaces, which are increasingly fragmented.
Amendment 216KA seeks to ensure that an employer is not prohibited from taking action against the worker for meeting or indicating that they would like to meet unions during the statutory recognition process if the worker has breached any term of their contract of employment. The prohibition that this amendment seeks to amend is carried forward from the existing legislation, where the proposed proviso about the worker not having breached their contract does not appear. While well intentioned, this amendment is not necessary. The prohibition applies only where the employer takes action against the worker solely or mainly on the grounds that they met with the union. It does not apply where the sole or main purpose is another reason, which may, in some circumstances, be a breach of their contract of employment. I hope this provides the necessary reassurance to the noble Lord.
I therefore thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, for the debate and for tabling these amendments, but I must ask the noble Lord not to move the amendments.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, we are very grateful to the Minister for revealing to the Committee that we are discussing a fundamental reshaping of workplace democracy, with potentially profound consequences. She is right to explain that that is what the Government are about. The Employment Rights Bill does not just tinker with existing procedures; it carefully dismantles the framework established by previous Labour Governments. Under these reforms, as the Minister just revealed, unions would need to demonstrate just 10% membership support to trigger recognition processes, and that is a threshold that regulations could reduce, after consultation, to an extraordinary 2%.
Let me explain to the Committee what that means in practice. In a bargaining unit of 250 employees, recognition could be initiated by as few as 25 members under the 10% threshold, or potentially just five members if it is reduced to 2%. More troubling still, with the removal of the 40% support requirement, union recognition, granting negotiating rights over all 250 employees, could theoretically be achieved with a single yes vote, provided no one votes against. This is not hyperbole but mathematical reality under the proposed framework.
Perhaps most concerning of all is that, as the Minister, Justin Madders, acknowledged in the other place, there has been no consultation on these fundamental changes. We are being asked to revolutionise industrial relations based on ideology rather than evidence, without hearing from employers, workers or even the Central Arbitration Committee, which must implement these provisions. This lack of consultation betrays a troubling disregard for the complexity of workplace relations and the legitimate interests of all parties: employers, workers who support unionisation, and those who do not.
The amendments I spoke to are not anti-union but pro-democracy. They recognise that legitimate collective bargaining must rest on genuine demonstrable support from the workforce it claims to represent. The current proposals risk creating what I can only describe as recognition by stealth, where small, motivated groups can impose collective bargaining arrangements on entire workforces without meaningful mandate. That is not industrial democracy; it is the antithesis of it.
Consider the worker who joins a company the day after a union application is filed. Under these proposals, they may be excluded from the very process that will determine their workplace representation. Consider the 245 employees in my hypothetical bargaining unit who never joined the union and never voted, yet find themselves bound by collective agreements negotiated on their behalf by representatives they did not choose.
Beyond democratic concerns lie practical ones: the amendments I have tried to persuade the House to accept recognise that businesses must continue to operate during recognition processes that could stretch over nine months. Routine recruitment, staff transfers and ordinary business activities cannot be frozen pending union ballots without severe economic consequences. Yet the Bill as drafted forces exactly this choice: suspend normal operations or face the uncertainty of having legitimate business decisions treated as manipulation.
These reforms occur within a pattern of changes that consistently favour union interests over balanced workplace relations. The lowering of thresholds, the removal of safeguards and the expansion of access rights: each individual change may seem modest, but collectively they represent a fundamental shift in the balance of industrial relations. This is particularly concerning given the Government’s stated commitment to economic growth. How can we simultaneously demand that businesses expand, hire and invest while making their operations subject to collective bargaining arrangements that will lack genuine workforce support? The Government must bear in mind that these Benches will not sit back and allow this to happen. We will return to it at Report, but in the meantime, I will not oppose the clause standing part.
“3A After paragraph 13 insert—13A “(1) This paragraph applies if—(a) the CAC has received an application under paragraph 11 or 12, and(b) it has given notice to the employer under paragraph 13 of receipt of the application.(2) The employer must comply with the following duties (so far as it is reasonable to expect the employer to do so).(3) The duties are—(a) to give to the CAC, within the relevant period, the specified information in relation to each of the relevant workers; (b) if the relevant workers change as a result of an appropriate bargaining unit being agreed by the parties or decided by the CAC, to give to the CAC, within the relevant period, the specified information in relation to each of those who are now the relevant workers;(c) to take reasonable steps to ensure that the information given to the CAC under paragraph (a) or (b) does not include any information relating to an individual who is not a relevant worker;(d) to inform the CAC, as soon as reasonably practicable, of any worker in relation to whom information has been given to the CAC under paragraph (a) or (b) and who ceases to be a relevant worker (otherwise than by reason of a change mentioned in paragraph (b)).(4) The relevant period is—(a) in the case of the duty in sub-paragraph (3)(a)—(i) the period of 5 working days starting with the day after that on which notice was given to the employer of receipt of the application, or(ii) such longer period (so starting) as the CAC may specify to the parties by notice containing reasons for the extension;(b) in the case of the duty in sub-paragraph (3)(b)—(i) the period of 5 working days starting with the day after that on which the bargaining unit is agreed or the CAC’s decision is notified to the employer, or(ii) such longer period (so starting) as the CAC may specify to the parties by notice containing reasons for the extension.(5) The specified information, in relation to a relevant worker, is—(a) the worker’s name;(b) the worker’s date of birth;(c) the category of worker to which the relevant worker belongs.(6) In the case of an application under paragraph 11(2) or 12(2), the relevant workers are—(a) in relation to any time before an appropriate bargaining unit is agreed by the parties or decided by the CAC, those falling within the proposed bargaining unit, and(b) in relation to any time after an appropriate bargaining unit is so agreed or decided, those falling within the bargaining unit agreed or decided upon,but excluding any worker who joined the bargaining unit after the application day.(7) In the case of an application under paragraph 12(4), the relevant workers are those falling within the bargaining unit agreed by the parties, excluding any worker who joined the bargaining unit after the application day.13B (1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if—(a) the CAC is satisfied that the employer has failed to fulfil a duty mentioned in paragraph 13A(3), and(b) the application under paragraph 11 or 12 is in progress.(2) The CAC may order the employer—(a) to take such steps to remedy the failure as the CAC considers reasonable and specifies in the order, and(b) to do so within such period as the CAC considers reasonable and specifies in the order;and in this paragraph a “remedial order” means an order under this sub-paragraph.(3) If— (a) the CAC is satisfied that the employer has failed to comply with a remedial order, and(b) the application under paragraph 11 or 12 is in progress,the CAC must, as soon as reasonably practicable, notify the employer and the union (or unions) that it is satisfied that the employer has failed to comply.(4) A remedial order and a notice under sub-paragraph (3) must draw the recipient’s attention to the effect of sub-paragraphs (5) and (6).(5) Sub-paragraph (6) applies if—(a) the CAC is satisfied that the employer has failed to comply with a remedial order,(b) the application under paragraph 11 or 12 is in progress,(c) the parties have agreed an appropriate bargaining unit or the CAC has decided an appropriate bargaining unit, and(d) in the case of an application under paragraph 11(2) or 12(2), the CAC, if required to do so, has decided under paragraph 20 that the application is not invalid.(6) The CAC may issue a declaration that the union is (or unions are) recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the workers constituting the bargaining unit.(7) For the purposes of this paragraph, an application under paragraph 11 or 12 is in progress if none of the following has occurred—(a) the withdrawal of the application;(b) the CAC giving notice of a decision under paragraph 14(7) which precludes it from accepting the application;(c) the CAC giving notice under paragraph 15(4)(a) in relation to the application;(d) the CAC giving notice to the union (or unions) of a decision under paragraph 20 that the application is invalid;(e) the CAC giving notice to the union (or unions) of a declaration issued under paragraph 13B(6), 19F(5), 19K(4) or (5), 19P(4) or (5), 22(2) or 27(2) in relation to the application;(f) the holding of any ballot arising from the application.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires an employer to provide certain information about the workers in a bargaining unit within 5 working days after the employer is notified of an application for recognition of a trade union. The duty does not include workers who joined the unit after the application was received by the CAC, as they cannot vote in any potential ballot arising from the application.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, as I explained at the all-Peers briefing on 8 May, my amendments to Schedule 6 have been made following welcome scrutiny of the Bill. They do not bring forward new policy but instead aim to ensure that the legislation operates more effectively to implement policies already reflected in the Bill. I will speak to all the amendments in this group, which amend Schedule 6 or the government amendments that I tabled.
On government Amendments 216L, 216M, 216U, 216W, 216J, 216N, 216P, 216Q and 216V, there is currently no provision for a sanction on an employer where the employer fails to comply with access arrangements in relation to a worker application for trade union derecognition. Where legislation imposes a duty, there must be a corresponding enforcement mechanism to give effect to that duty. This is why these amendments have been tabled and why they are necessary.
Amendments 216LA, 216LB, 216MZA, 216MZB and 216MZC in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, all relate to sanctions on the employer or the union where one of the parties fails to comply with access arrangements generally in relation to a worker application for trade union derecognition. Amendment 216LA, again tabled by the noble Lord Sharpe, would introduce a proportionality test, where the CAC considers applying a sanction on the employer to prevent it campaigning should it be in breach of an access agreement. This amendment is unnecessary. It would make it harder for the CAC to issue an order, as determining how a breach by the employer affected the recognition process would be difficult to establish. It should be sufficient for the CAC to establish that a breach has occurred.
Amendment 216LB would add an additional sanction where a union has breached an access agreement by allowing the CAC to impose a sanction to prevent the union campaigning. This amendment is unnecessary because, in relation to applications by workers seeking derecognition of the union, the CAC has the ultimate sanction of declaring that the union is derecognised, should the union fail to comply with the CAC order.
Amendment 216MZA seeks to clarify that either the union or the worker can enforce a CAC order but not both, the aim being to avoid overlapping enforcement actions. I thank the noble Lord for this amendment, but it is not necessary. The legislation is framed so that the union, the workers or both can enforce a CAC order because we cannot assume, where there is an application by workers for derecognition of a union, that workers and the union would be of the same view. To insist that only one party or the other can enforce the order would deprive the other party of its rights. This shows that the Bill is about striking the right balance between unions, employers and workers. Should both the union and the workers be of the same view, the court could simply join their applications together when considering whether an employer had breached the CAC order. In that event, there would therefore not be overlapping enforcement actions against the employer.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“(5A) Where the CAC is satisfied that changes to the workforce materially affect the composition of the bargaining unit, it may direct the employer to provide updated specified information before the close of any ballot.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment enables the CAC to request updated workforce information from the employer where there have been material changes, ensuring that the ballot reflects the current composition of the bargaining unit.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her explanation of the amendments, particularly the government amendments. However, she argued that this should have been something of the nature of a general debate. The reason why the amendments were degrouped in the other cases is because they all relate to the government amendments, which the Government are trying to pass off as technical when they are anything but. This deserved a discrete debate and that is what it is going to get. I will have to speak at some length, because there is a great deal to cover, for which I apologise in advance.
I will start with Amendment 215AZZA, which is essential to ensure that the union recognition ballot remains fair and truly representative of the bargaining unit at the time of the ballot. The Government’s current position, which locks in workforce data as of the application date and refuses to permit updates, rests on a false premise, and that is that the workplace is static and unchanging; this is simply not the case.
Many industries, from hospitality and retail to logistics and manufacturing, experience significant changes in their workplace composition over time. Employees leave, new workers are hired and entire teams can be restructured in response to market demand or seasonal shifts. By refusing to allow the CAC to request updated workforce information, the Government’s approach risks ballots that are fundamentally out of date—an electoral exercise held not on the actual workforce but on a ghost workforce that no longer exists.
Our amendment would give the CAC the power to direct employers to provide updated workforce information where material changes occur, allowing the ballot to reflect the current reality. This is not a matter of administrative tidiness. It protects workers from having union recognition based on outdated data imposed on them or from being excluded from the democratic process entirely because they joined the company after the arbitrary cut-off.
Furthermore, the CAC has a proven track record of acting promptly and impartially to ensure that ballots are fair and accurate, so the amendment would strengthen rather than weaken its role in protecting workers’ democratic rights. Without this power, the Government’s framework risks disfranchising many workers and undermining the confidence in the entire union recognition process. I have to say that noble Lords opposite frequently cite democratic concerns about current employment law, and if they are serious and not just paying mere lip service to that notion, they should back the amendment and the others to which I am speaking.
Amendment 215AZZB seeks to correct a fundamental injustice that is embedded in the Government’s Amendment 215A. The Government are excluding any worker who joins the bargaining unit after the application day from participating in the recognition ballot. This exclusion is indefensible. It denies newly hired employees any say in a process that will directly impact their working conditions, their representation and potentially their relationship with their employer. The principle at stake is simple: democratic fairness requires that those affected by a decision have the opportunity to participate in making that decision. To exclude workers based solely on an arbitrary application date denies them this right. It is not, as the Minister asserted just now, fair; it risks imposing union recognition —or, conversely, denying it—on employees who are not allowed to express their views.
In sectors where employee turnover is high or where the workforce expands rapidly due to seasonal demand, the Government’s approach risks disfranchising a significant portion of the workforce. These workers are often the most vulnerable and most in need of representation. Our amendment would ensure that all workers employed within the bargaining unit up to the close of the ballot would be eligible to vote. This aligns with the recognition process, with democratic principles and with the reality of modern employment patterns. To deny these workers a voice is to undermine the legitimacy of the entire process.
Amendment 215AZZC seeks to reinforce the need for fairness by ensuring that newly hired workers are not automatically excluded from the recognition ballot, provided they are employed before the ballot concludes. Again, we believe it is untenable for the Government to argue that workers hired after the application date should have no say in a process that determines their representative status and the terms and conditions that govern their work. In industries that are characterised by rapid hiring, seasonal peaks or unpredictable labour needs, the workforce on the application date may bear little resemblance to the workforce at the time of the ballot. By allowing all workers employed up to the ballot’s close to vote, we uphold principles of inclusivity and fairness, ensuring that this ballot truly reflects the views of those it affects.
Amendment 215AZZCA recognises the realities of sectors characterised by high seasonal or cyclical employment volatility, such as retail, hospitality and logistics. These industries often see dramatic fluctuations in employee numbers, with staff numbers sometimes doubling or halving within a matter of weeks or months. The Government’s proposals fail to take this volatility into account. They impose rigid cut-offs that disfranchise workers who join after the application day, even when their numbers materially affect the bargaining unit’s composition. This is not a marginal issue. In such sectors, the workforce on the application day may represent only a fraction of the employees who will work there over the coming months.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the Minister’s introduction to my amendments. I accept that the Government want to go for 2% as the lower limit, but I found the Government’s explanation of my other two amendments, which require a minimum of three people, very strange. The Minister said, “It’s not the way it’s been done before, so we shouldn’t change it now”. If she were to apply that principle to the Bill, we could strike the whole thing out and be done with it.
The reason for proposing the change is that it is sensible. It is just not sensible to put a company, particularly a small company, in a position where one employee can trigger this process. A minimum of three is not a big figure; it is just saying that there needs to be more than one, and three seems to be the right place to start. I know it is not the way that it has been done; that is why I put in an amendment.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I will say a few words in support of Amendments 215AZZB to 215AZZD, tabled by my noble friend Lord Sharpe. These are to Schedule 6 and I am responding to the Government’s amendments to this schedule, which qualify who may take part in a ballot, to ensure that those workers in the union before the close of the ballot may vote. These amendments address those who join after the application date but before the close of the ballot and newly hired workers within the bargaining unit. Amendment 215AZZD aims to ensure that the CAC is satisfied that the exclusion of new employees would not materially affect the outcome of a ballot or undermine democratic fairness. Amendment 215AZA would ensure that new workers who join the bargaining unit after the application date are not automatically disregarded for the purposes of recognition.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendments standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. These proposals, while numerous and largely technical in nature, form an important part of the broader framework for trade union recognition and access. Although they are technical in nature, if you read the amendments—and there are quite a number of them—you will see that the Government are beginning to put a bit of meat on quite a small bone. This is the first time in the Bill that we have seen that kind of thing begin to be teased out. Notably, government Amendments 215A and 215F set out clear procedural timelines and information-sharing requirements between employers and the Central Arbitration Committee to help improve transparency and predictability for all parties involved. By establishing firmer timelines, such as a five-day window to provide workforce data and the 20-day period to agree access arrangements, these provisions aim to support a more orderly and informed recognition process, which I welcome.
I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. I acknowledge the intention to reflect the workforce changes more accurately, but in our view, some of his proposals risk creating a little uncertainty. Amendments 215AZZB and 215AZZC, for instance, introduce provisions to include new and hired workers in the ballot, potentially undermining the principle that eligibility should be based on the state of the bargaining unit at the time of the application. It is like buying a lottery ticket after the lottery has finished, and then complaining if your numbers come up and you are not allowed to win—you literally have to be in it before it starts.
Similarly, the carve-outs from the three-year stability periods found in Amendments 216FA and 216FB could weaken the clarity and consistency that employers and trade unions require. We must be cautious about layering too many exceptions that could reopen settling matters and prolong disputes unnecessarily.
Finally, while the Government’s overall aim of modernising these areas of law is welcome, it remains vital that clarity and simplicity are not lost in that process. We need to ensure that the frameworks, particularly around recognition, access and enforcement, remain workable and intelligible for employers and workers alike. This is important in sectors characterised by high turnover and volatility. I therefore urge Ministers to consider refining these proposals with that principle in mind: that the system must support effective and fair collective bargaining without inviting further ambiguity.
These amendments are well laid and extremely well made. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, for their clarity tonight in dealing with the issues. To everybody who has been sitting here for seven or eight long nights, I must say that business is not moving any more slowly, but clarity is much improved. I thank the Front Bench and the Conservative group for being more concise in speaking to the issues; I have appreciated that, and I know my group have too. I think the Minister might agree—through slightly gritted teeth—that this is the way forward.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am conscious that we have had a slightly disjointed debate; as I said, some of these issues were debated in the previous group and were covered in my opening remarks. I will pick up a few points. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for saying that we are attempting to create a more orderly recognition process, because that is exactly what our amendments are trying to do: to provide the clarity that we felt was missing. I should say that, in addition to the comments I made earlier, we notified all Peers of the Government’s amendments, twice and in writing, and we invited all Peers to a briefing on these on 8 May. All the details have been spelled out in an all-peers letter and supporting annexes. We have therefore been at pains to explain the thinking behind our amendments.
Obviously, most recognition processes go through extremely smoothly, but we believe that this reform is necessary to prevent recruitment for the purposes of thwarting trade union recognition. The process must be fair and not undermined by underhand tactics. Although not all recruitment is underhand, of course, we decided after consultation that the freezing proposed in the Bill is the best way to achieve that fairness. We are attempting to come up with a fair system. Attempting to distinguish between the various intentions of different employers and their recruitment practices is impractical and would be likely to lead to disputes. We felt that this would not be in the interests of employers, the unions or the workers. Of course, there will be changes to the people in the bargaining unit, and where a union is recognised, new workers will be able to take part in subsequent ballots—for example, should a derecognition ballot be held—and other forms of consultation. These restrictions will apply only to that particular element of trade union recognition.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, said that he wants to introduce a proportionality test. That would make it harder for the CAC to issue an order determining how a breach by the employer affected the recognition process; that would be difficult for it to establish. It should be sufficient for the CAC to establish that a breach has occurred, rather than having to make the more difficult judgment about proportionality. Also, the CAC is very experienced in such things and is well equipped to do so.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that we do not object to his amendment only because this has not been done before, but because we wanted to consult before we made a final decision about changing the acceptance threshold from the 10% proposed limit.
I think I have covered most of the other points, either in the letters that we have sent out or in my earlier speeches. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I would be very grateful if the Minister could address the substance of my amendment; 10% or 2% is all very fine, but if it results in the answer of one employee being sufficient, that seems to be not an ideal situation. I would have thought that in seeking to look after small businesses it would be sensible to require a minimum number. I cannot see anything in the structure of the Bill at the moment that allows a minimum number to be applied to this percentage. A percentage can generate one if the company is small, whether it is 10% or 2%. Would it not be a good idea to have something in the Bill, subject to consultation, which allowed in small companies with a small workforce for it not to be just one employee who is triggering this procedure?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
That that would come out in the consultation. I think the noble Lord’s proposal of three is a somewhat arbitrary number. If we are going to do that, there are all sorts of minimum numbers that could be applied. I urge noble Lords to recognise that these are the issues that we will consider in the consultation, but I do not think that the rather arbitrary figure that the noble Lord proposed is appropriate at this time.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I understand that, but it still requires something in the Bill to allow a minimum number. We can return to that matter on Report.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 218, line 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 218, line 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 218, line 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 218, line 17.
(a) the period of 20 working days starting with the day after the day on which the CAC gives the union (or unions) notice under paragraph 15(5) that the application is accepted, or(b) such longer period (so starting) as the CAC may specify to the parties by notice containing reasons for the extension.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide that, where an application under Part 1 of Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (recognition of trade union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining) has been made, the period for agreeing terms on which the trade union seeking recognition is to have access to the relevant workers in connection with the application is 20 working days following notification that the union’s application is accepted. The amendment would also enable the Central Arbitration Committee to specify a longer period.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 218, line 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 218, line 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 218, line 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 218, line 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 218, line 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 218, line 17.
“21A In paragraph 39 (admissibility of applications: same bargaining unit), in sub-paragraph (5), after “40” insert “, 40A”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes a consequential amendment of Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 as a result of the amendment made by paragraph 23 of Schedule 6 to the Bill.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 218, line 17.
“27A In paragraph 47 (validity of applications: same bargaining unit), in sub-paragraph (3), after “48” insert “, 48A”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes a consequential amendment of Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 as a result of the amendment made by paragraph 29 of Schedule 6 to the Bill.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 218, line 17.
“Changes relevant to appropriateness of bargaining unit
32A (1) Paragraph 67 (admissibility of applications: employer or union believes bargaining unit no longer appropriate) is amended as follows.(2) In sub-paragraph (2)(c), at the end insert “(but see sub-paragraph (3)).”(3) After sub-paragraph (2) insert—“(3) In a case where the application was received by the CAC before the end of the period of three years starting with the day on which the declaration referred to in paragraph 64(1)(a) was issued, the CAC must disregard the matter specified in sub-paragraph (2)(c).”32B (1) Paragraph 70 (determination of bargaining unit by CAC) is amended as follows.(2) In sub-paragraph (3)(c), at the end insert “(but see sub-paragraph (3A)).”(3) After sub-paragraph (3) insert—“(3A) In a case where the application was received by the CAC before the end of the period of three years starting with the day on which the declaration referred to in paragraph 64(1)(a) was issued, the CAC may not take into account the matter specified in sub-paragraph (3)(c).”32C In paragraph 75 (questions for CAC to decide where employer believes bargaining unit has ceased to exist), in sub-paragraph (3)(c), at the end insert “(but see paragraph 77(4A)).”32D In paragraph 77 (CAC’s decision as to appropriateness of bargaining unit, etc), after sub-paragraph (4) insert—“(4A) In a case where the copy of the notice given to the CAC by the employer under paragraph 74(1) was received by the CAC before the end of the period of three years starting with the day on which the declaration referred to in paragraph 64(1)(a) was issued, in deciding whether the original unit is no longer appropriate the CAC must disregard the matter specified in paragraph 75(3)(c).””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides that, where the Central Arbitration Committee has issued a declaration that a trade union is recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of a bargaining unit, and a decision of the CAC as to the continued appropriateness of the bargaining unit is sought under Part 3 of Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 before the end of the period of three years beginning with the date of the declaration, the CAC is not to take into account substantial changes in the number of workers employed in the original unit.
(a) the period of 20 working days starting with the day after the day on which the CAC gives the union (or unions) notice under paragraph 68(5) or 76(5) that the application is accepted, or (b) such longer period (so starting) as the CAC may specify to the parties by notice containing reasons for the extension.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide that, where an application under Part 3 of Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (changes affecting bargaining unit) has been made, the period for agreeing terms on which the trade union concerned is to have access to the relevant workers in connection with the application is 20 working days following notification that the application is accepted. The amendment would also enable the Central Arbitration Committee to specify a longer period.
“(iii) if the CAC informs the union (or unions) under paragraph 25(9) (where it applies by virtue of paragraph 89(4)) of any ballot arising from the application, the CAC acting under paragraph 29 (where it applies by virtue of paragraph 89(5)) in relation to the ballot.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that, where the Central Arbitration Committee decides that a complaint about unfair practices in connection with an application under Part 3 of Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is well-founded, the CAC may make an order under paragraph 81I(3) of that Schedule, or give notice of a ballot under paragraph 81I(5), whether or not a ballot arising from the application has been held.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that, where the Central Arbitration Committee decides that a complaint about unfair practices in connection with an application under Part 3 of Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is well-founded, the CAC may issue a declaration under paragraph 81J(4) or (5) of that Schedule whether or not a ballot arising from the application has been held.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 249, line 32.
(a) the period of 20 working days starting with the day after the day on which the CAC gives the union (or unions) notice under paragraph 111(5) or 115(5) that the application is accepted, or(b) such longer period (so starting) as the CAC may specify to the parties by notice containing reasons for the extension.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide that, where an application under Part 4 of Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (derecognition) has been made, the period for agreeing terms on which the trade union concerned is to have access to the relevant workers in connection with the application is 20 working days following notification that the application is accepted. The amendment would also enable the Central Arbitration Committee to specify a longer period.
(a) refuse the employer’s application under paragraph 106 or 107;(b) order the employer to refrain from any campaigning in relation to an application under paragraph 112.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for a sanction where an employer fails to comply with an access agreement under Part 4 of Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and the application for derecognition of a trade union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of a bargaining unit has been made by one or more workers in the unit under paragraph 112 of that Schedule. The Central Arbitration Committee may order the employer not to campaign in relation to the application.
116EA “(1) This paragraph applies if the CAC has made an order under paragraph 116E(4)(b) in relation to an application under paragraph 112.(2) The worker making the application (or each of the workers making the application) and the union (or each of the unions) are entitled to enforce obedience to the order.(3) The order may be enforced—(a) in England and Wales, in the same way as an order of the county court;(b) in Scotland, in the same way as an order of the sheriff.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 249, line 32. It enables the worker making the application in question, or the trade union concerned, to enforce an order made against an employer requiring the employer not to campaign in relation to the application.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 249, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 249, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 249, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 218, line 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 218, line 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 247, line 2.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 249, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 249, line 38.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendments of Schedule 6 at page 249, lines 32 and 38.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 247, line 2.
Baroness Coffey
and insert “, in subsection (1)—
(a) omit “of those voting on a ballot”;(b) after “union”, insert “by a ballot”.” Member’s explanatory statement
The intention of this amendment is to remove the existing paragraphs (a) and (b) of the Clause, and ensure that the majority of all union members who could possibly vote are needed to pass a political resolution, not just the majority of those that vote.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 216YC, I will also speak to Amendment 216YD and address Amendment 217, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, to which I have added my name—as indeed has my noble friend Lady Finn, whose birthday it is today; she knows how to have a good time. I will also address Amendment 218A and various other amendments, and Clause 77.
In essence, we are debating Clauses 58, 59 and 77. Clause 58 is about political funds. The situation has been that a political resolution is needed, and a fair, open, democratic process occurs every 10 years at most where members of the union are invited to keep the resolution going, or a new resolution may be put forward. One thing that concerns me is that this clause could simply wipe out that need.
I do not know in detail how every political resolution can be put forward, but my understanding of trade unions is that, by and large, individuals cannot put them forward. They can be put forward only through resolutions and motions, often by a person who is a delegate of a branch or similar. As a consequence, in effect, we have a situation where a political resolution can go on ad infinitum. I am not sure that that is the right approach.
I recognise that a lot of the rest of the Bill is about changing ways that people can vote to try to make it a lot more digital and a lot easier. I understand why the Labour Government, in partnership with the trade unions, believe that that is the right approach. I am also conscious, though, of why changes have been made in the past.
I am looking just to probe with my proposal. At the moment, there is a threshold for a strike where at least half of those eligible to vote have to vote. Here, there is none of that at all. It shows me somewhat that, even with trade unions, there is a lot of disengagement from this part of the process. I get that a lot of people are not necessarily opting out. To give an example, with the Musicians’ Union resolution, only 18% of members actually voted or participated in the ballot. With UNISON’s last resolution, fewer than 15% of its members were involved in determining whether to keep the resolution. As I said, this does not seem very open to anybody who might want to table a different resolution. I am not expecting UNISON to start contributing funds to the Conservative Party any time soon—I guess the name of its political fund, Labour Link, gives the game away on where UNISON would like its funds to go—and that is democracy, but I am thinking of ways that we could potentially extend this.
On Amendment 216YD, we seem to have had a lot of general elections recently, but I hope we are now in a situation where we hold elections every five years. If your Lordships were so inclined, it would make sense, recognising the direct link between political funds and political parties, to start to think about these political resolutions happening every five years instead of every 10 years. We are in a political world that is significantly changing. Almost every parliamentary constituency has at least five candidates, with at least six or seven outside of England, in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. It is worth considering whether we should update this.
I generally agree with the proposal that we should get rid of Clause 59 in its entirety. I think back in particular to Second Reading. I will not go into detail, but the noble Lord, Lord Burns, spoke eloquently about what happened with his review. I do not plan to dwell on his amendment, as there are others who will contribute to it more. For me, it goes back to the need for a sensible approach instead of having to go through a long procedure, which to some extent is probably contrary to Article 11 and the implicit right not to join either a trade union or a political fund. This clause scraps that. Ministers have commented that that is okay. The basis is that you can opt out, and it will take effect the following January. You might have contributed a lot of money by then, but they think that is all right.
This is why I tabled my Amendment 218A; I am delighted that my noble friend Lady Cash supports it. If we go ahead with the opt-out approach then someone who opts out may not have all the necessary paperwork on the day they decide to opt out—apart from when they join the union in the first place. Therefore, if we gave them four weeks from their becoming a member of a trade union, during which they could decide that they did not want to contribute, their decision could be backdated to the day of joining. This is an approach for a modern world, where people may not want to spend all their time looking at the small print when they sign up to something to understand quite what they can or cannot do, which can affect their rights. Contrary to the Bill’s title—the Employment Rights Bill—the text as it stands in effect removes an employee’s rights. If the Government were to scrap that element about “the day” I would be more than delighted, although I would prefer to stick to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Burns.
As regards some of the other approaches put forward in various amendments in this group, I would not in any way want to accuse any trade union of trying to allow intimidation or the like in their dealing with their members. We have heard the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway, eloquently cite, I am sure with good evidence and good experience, cases of employers intimidating. However, I think it is fair to say that some of the trade union reforms that happened over the past decades—very few of which were changed by the Blair and Brown Governments, I should point out—were made on the basis of concerns about intimidation. I hope the Minister will at least recognise some of the concerns that noble Lords may have in this group. A variety of amendments have been tabled, which all seek to get us to us to a similar place.
Finally, I will speak to Clause 77, which starts, in effect, to remove transparency. Transparency is a good thing when we talk about democracy and the contributions that organisations make to a variety of political parties. I am surprised that the Government are going down this route. I cannot believe that it is that arduous for trade unions to compile this information. There are other aspects of what is happening with the certification officer, which we will get on to in another group, but given the importance that has rightly been given to considering the issues concerning the Electoral Commission, it is right that we should also consider this issue carefully at this stage. I do not believe that removing transparency is the right direction for the Committee to take.
Although I intend to keep this debate lively and pacy, it is important that we make sure that we get to the bottom of why this provision has been felt to be necessary. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain, fundamentally, why the Government have taken a complete and utter about-turn if it has not been designed —I do not want to upset the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport—to increase the amount of political funds. I am sure those funds will be use in very good ways—well, considering my political party, perhaps not always in good ways—but when the transparency is removed we will not be able to have that scrutiny. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
I advise noble Lords that if Amendment 216YC is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 216YD because of pre-emption.
Lord Burns (CB)
My Lords, my Amendment 217 relates to Clause 59 and the requirement to contribute to a political fund, and I am grateful for the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Finn, Lady Coffey and Lady Cash. As we know, by law, a trade union wishing to spend money on party-political activities must set up a separate political fund for financing any such expenditure.
The amendment addresses a single issue: whether new trade union members should be explicitly asked whether they wish to opt in to contributing to the union’s political fund or should automatically become contributors to the political fund unless they take action to opt out. The present position is that new trade union members become contributors to the political fund only if they give notice of their willingness to do so by submitting an opt-in notice. Additionally, every year unions must notify members of their right to submit a withdrawal notice.
Clause 59 proposes to change both conditions so that new members will automatically become contributors to the union’s political fund unless they give notice of their wish to opt out, and will be notified of their right to submit a withdrawal notice only every 10 years, rather than every year as at present.
This is a controversial issue today and one that has been debated for more than 100 years. The position on opt-in or opt-out has changed several times since trade union political funds were legalised in 1913. I am very sorry for my cough.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
Will the noble Lord give way? He might find an opportunity to take advantage of the water that was provided. I just wanted to say that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, is making a very powerful contribution to this debate and I am going to support him in his argument. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way.
Lord Burns (CB)
I thank the noble Baroness for those kind words. Unfortunately, it is the season of the year when I take various inhalers for hay fever and such like and the dust tends to gather in my throat when I am sitting for long periods, as I have been this afternoon.
I was just mentioning that this is a debate which has gone on for a long time. Between 1946 and 2016, members automatically became contributors to political funds unless they opted out. In 1984 the Conservative Government considered legislating to change to the opt-in model but settled for an agreement that the unions would increase awareness among members of their right to opt out.
In 2015 the Conservative Government introduced a Trade Union Bill that proposed to change the system so that both existing and new members would contribute to the political fund only if they explicitly opted to do so. The Labour Opposition argued that this change would have a negative impact on the size of union political funds, and consequently Labour Party funding. They argued that this should be done only in the context of broader party funding reform. They were successful in establishing a Select Committee to consider the issue and to find a solution in parallel with the Bill’s progress.
I was asked to chair the committee, and several other members of the committee remain Members of the House today. The committee concluded that reintroducing an opt-in process for all members, including existing members, could significantly reduce the number of union members participating in political funds. It also concluded that this would lead to a significant reduction in union payments to the Labour Party while leaving donations to other parties unaffected.
A majority—but not all—of the committee concluded that the proposed requirement to opt in should not apply to existing members unless it was part of a broader reform of party funding. However, the committee unanimously decided that the opt-in mechanism should apply to all new members. After further debate, the Conservative Government accepted compromise amendments that limited the opt-in mechanism to new members, despite some significant unhappiness on their own side.
I acknowledge that there is no conclusive approach to determining whether opting in is better or worse than opting out. In some cases, opting out is deemed appropriate, such as in the case of workplace pensions, where the failure to opt in could result in future costs for government. However, evidence from various settings suggests that when it comes to making additional payments, more people will end up paying if they must opt out rather than opt in. The more cumbersome the administrative hurdles to opting out, the greater the likelihood an individual will not exercise their right to do so. Such administrative hurdles increase the likelihood that the outcome will not be in the best interests of the individual.
On balance, I prefer that we should ensure that people make informed decisions based on clear and transparent options. With most financial products—and decisions about allowing tech companies to use individuals’ data—there is a requirement to explicitly opt in. The concern is that allowing companies to require opt-out preys on people’s inertia. Furthermore, we have spent hours in this House debating the data Bill and the question of opting in or opting out of AI models’ ability to learn from copyrighted material. My own view is that requiring people to explicitly opt in reflects their preferences more accurately.
During a helpful conversation with the Minister, for which I am grateful, she emphasised that this is not simply a return to the position pre 2016. However, my fear is that in substance that is indeed what it is. I would welcome clarification on some aspects of the Government’s proposals. Will it be a requirement that the union’s application form for members joining a union continues to include a statement to the effect that a member may choose to opt out of the political fund and that they will not suffer any detriment if they choose not to contribute? Will new members have the option of choosing to opt out before completing the application? Why do the Government wish to change the requirement that a member be reminded annually of the right to opt out? The new proposal is that they should be reminded only every 10 years. What is the Government’s justification for this change?
Is there any reason why it should not be possible to give an unbiased choice at the time of joining? There could be two questions—two boxes—and a requirement to tick one box. One might say, “I wish to contribute to the union’s political fund”, and the other, “I do not wish to contribute to the union’s political fund”. The application would not be complete without ticking one or the other—a practice that we see very often these days, particularly with online applications. Does the Minister anticipate that the proportion of new members contributing to political funds will be higher under this legislation than has been the experience under the present 2016 Act and, if so, by how much?
Finally, I say this to the Government in the friendliest terms I can muster: why are they running the risk that the next time there is a change of government there will be another reversal which results in something less favourable to Labour than the 2016 compromise? Another reversal might well introduce the opt-in system for all members, both new and existing; in other words, the proposal on the table before the 2016 compromise that caused all the trouble at that point.
I stress that I have no view on whether trade union members’ contributions to political funds are too high or too low. Having tried, with a small amount of success, to find a resolution to the issue in 2016, my only ambition in involving myself in this Bill is to secure a lasting solution to the issue of contributions to political funds that can stand the test of time, as I hoped the 2016 compromise would. The purpose of my amendment is to oppose the move to an opt-out mechanism until we have more justification for such a change and greater clarity about some of the questions I have outlined.
Lord Prentis of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I speak in favour of the Employment Rights Bill unamended and declare an interest as I was general secretary of the UK’s largest union, UNISON, for over 20 years. It has over 1.3 million members; over 1 million of them women, mainly low paid. I have seen at first hand over those 20 years the good which our political funds can do. In my own union the political funds support our campaigns—campaigns to reform the social care sector, which we have talked about often in this place; campaigns for fairer pensions for women, for better rights for disabled workers and human rights in Northern Ireland—and, something I am particularly proud of, our anti-racism work.
Our political funds support projects to bring children from Asian and white communities together. They fund our work tackling racism as part of HOPE not hate, and our work with footballers on Show Racism the Red Card in schools and at football matches over the past 20 years. The fund is used to send films to every school on the horrors of the Holocaust. It is used for ground-breaking initiatives to build fairer and safer communities. What many do not realise is that, without using the resources of our political funds, it would be unlawful for trade unions to campaign politically on behalf of members in any pre-election period—not just Westminster elections but all elections. The slow drain of money from the political funds caused by the 2016 Act and arrangements is having a serious effect on the right that trade unions have had for more than 100 years: the right to campaign politically.
How political funds are used varies from union to union. Many unions have political funds that are not affiliated to any political party, such as the National Education Union, the NASUWT and PCS, to name just three. Only 13 of the 48 unions in the TUC are affiliated to the Labour Party. My own union is affiliated, but it always makes it transparently clear when a member joins that their political contribution goes either to the Labour Link or to the non-affiliated section of the fund known as the campaign fund. New members can choose to pay into one or the other or both—or, until 2016, they could opt out. There were no subscription traps. New members were not misled. There were no barriers to opting out, and the opting out arrangement, as has been said, operated for more than 60 years through Labour, Tory and coalition Administrations before the 2016 Act.
It is with this in mind that I reflected on the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, in reaching a way forward in 2016. I thank him for that, but I do not think that his amendment today should be progressed. It proposes that the 2016 arrangements continue under any new legislation. I ask the noble Lord not to pursue the amendment. Despite his good efforts, the 2016 arrangements have not proved a long-term solution for trade union political funds. They are gradually being drained of resources and, with that, so is the ability to campaign.
More to the point, in any democracy there will always be the threat that any incoming Government could put the clock back. There is always a very real possibility that we could get consistent ping-pong on many policies, not just on the political funds. Unfortunately, even if we leave things as they are, there is no guarantee that any change of government would not lead to another trade union Act more draconian than the 2016 Act. The possibility of consistent ping-pong in itself is not an argument for leaving things as they are; neither is it an argument for not returning to the principle of opting out, which operated for 60 years.
The Trade Union Act 2016 did what it intended to do. It deliberately placed considerable and costly burdens on trade unions, and it sought to reduce funding to the Labour Party. That was its purpose. But in doing that, it also compromised the ability of trade unions to provide a campaigning and political voice for working people in our country. That is why the Employment Rights Bill, unamended, is so important. That is why I ask noble Lords not to pursue the amendments to the political fund clauses of the Bill but to allow it to move forward unopposed.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I speak in support of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Burns. I apologise that I was not able to speak at Second Reading, but I did have the pleasure of working on the Trade Union Act in 2016. I well remember the setting up of the Select Committee on Trade Union Political Funds and Political Party Funding. Its report forced the requirement for new members to opt in to the political fund following its recommendations.
The committee was brilliantly chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Burns. I know that phrases such as “showed the best of this House” can sometimes be overused, but in this instance it was absolutely the case. It reported, I think, in five weeks. The secretariat was absolutely magnificent. The most important thing was that it was a cross-party committee and produced a cross-party consensus on the recommendations in all but one area, which I will return to.
One of the key considerations, and the one that is pertinent to this amendment, was the Conservative Party’s manifesto commitment that, in future, union members would be asked to opt in to contributing to their political fund, rather than just being given the opportunity of opting out. At the time, most members of a union with a political fund paid a political levy into the fund unless they took the active decision to opt out of doing so. I remember that the Select Committee spent a long time debating this. I hear the noble Lord, Lord Prentis, who said that this was the established practice for 60 years, but there was quite a strong debate. My noble friend Lord King felt that the King-Murray agreement had not been met in full with the requirements to report opting out.
The report produced some very helpful conclusions. One of the most relevant to today’s debate was that no one challenged the principle of moving from opt-out to opt-in. There were differences of opinion about how and when to make the move and, critically, whether it should apply to existing members, but the report basically accepted the principle. The Labour Party had some understandable concerns. It was fearful that a move to opt-in would mean that many union members would decide not to contribute to the political fund and that such a move was fundamentally unfair.
However, when Sir Nick Clegg appeared before the Committee, he said:
“I regard political opinion, affiliation and support as a sovereign decision for an individual citizen”.
He was, of course, completely right. Opt-in is supported because people should not be assumed to support any proposition, organisation, product or service, simply because they have failed, often through inertia, to say no. Companies have been rightly pilloried when they have assumed that the customer has signed up to something because they failed to tick a box or to see the small print. If a trade union member decides that he or she does not wish to contribute to a political fund, that is their decision; they should have the opportunity to actively choose to do so.
The behavioural experts consulted by the committee gave some powerful evidence about the impact of inertia on human behaviour. At the time, the power of inertia benefited the unions because only 11% of their members made the effort to opt out of the political fund. Under the then Government’s proposals, inertia would work against the unions. Human nature meant it would be extremely difficult to persuade existing members to make an active choice about whether to opt in. Indeed, Dr David Halpern of the Behavioural Insights Team said that analogous situations led him to expect a fall of 20% to 30% in political fund participation rates.
That brought us on to the second consideration, which was that the move to opt in for existing members would have an impact on the funding of one particular party, the Labour Party. On balance, the committee concluded that there would be a significant reduction in union payments to the Labour Party. The committee agreed that one way of easing this dilemma would be to distinguish between the requirements for new members and those for existing members of trade unions. For new members, it was unanimously agreed that opt-in was the correct way forward. Across many different walks of life, it is increasingly recognised that people should be asked to exercise an active choice and that organisations should not rely on inertia. The recommendation that, after a minimum transition period of 12 months, anyone joining a union with a political fund should pay the political levy only if they have actively chosen to do so was subsequently incorporated into the Trade Union Act 2016. It is that consensus that the Labour Party is seeking to undo today with this Bill.
This was not the case in the treatment of existing members. The fear was not of existing members choosing to opt out rather than opt in, but that they would simply choose to make no choice at all. I recall many heated discussions about whether the opt-in system should be extended to existing members, perhaps on a longer transition period than for new members, or whether existing contributors should not be included in the Act—option two. This was because it was feared that extending the opt-in to existing members would have a significant negative effect on union and Labour Party funding, even with an extended transition period. I well recall those discussions. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, talks about considerable unhappiness on our Benches, and he is not understating the case: when the second option was chosen, there were howls of “Bad faith!” It was at a critical juncture in the Brexit referendum period.
I rather subscribe to the view of Sir Winston Churchill:
“It has become a well-established custom that matters affecting the interests of rival parties should not be settled by the imposition of the will of one side over the other, but by an agreement reached either between the leaders of the main parties or by conferences under the impartial guidance of Mr Speaker”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/2/1948; cols. 859-60.]
Paragraph 115 of the Select Committee report stated:
“If any government were to use its majority unilaterally to inflict significant damage on the finances of opposition parties, it would risk starting a tit-for-tat conflict which could harm parliamentary democracy”.
So, while it is wrong for a Government to use their power to undermine their opponents, it is also wrong for a Government to act in a way that leaves it open to question whether they are acting in the interests of the country as a whole or the interests of their own party.
The Labour Party’s dependence on trade union funds means that a policy could potentially be seen to be up for sale. Just as I had sympathy at the time with the need not to inflict damage on the finances of an opposition party, I find myself now more than a little bothered that the Labour Benches are seeking to unwind the unanimously agreed principle of opt-in so that their own party’s finances will be improved. I am sure that they would not wish to be accused of the abuse of entrusted power for private gain, but that is the effect of Clause 59. It is for this reason, and because of the compelling and universal arguments in favour of opt-in, that I have added my name in support of this amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
I am sorry to do this to the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, on her birthday, but she was in a very key position in government for some time, so it would be helpful if, first, she could confirm, on the issue of ballot turnouts, that the previous Government, over their 14 years, received repeated representations from trade unions to enjoy the same rights that political parties enjoy to safe and secure balloting in a bid to boost democratic turnout in ballots, so that we would be able to encourage and engage more members in ballots. What we got, I think, was a review and a promise of a pilot that was never seen again.
Secondly, comparisons were made between trade union membership and subscriptions to commercial services, whereas, of course, membership of a democratic organisation which exists to defend your rights is not the same as a subscription to a for-profit service.
Finally, because we have heard a lot in this debate about balance, can the noble Baroness confirm whether the previous Government ever considered shareholders having the right to veto political donations by companies? I have never even heard of a shareholder’s right to opt out, never mind a requirement that they should opt in before a political donation is made by a company.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention. I cannot speak to the balloting, et cetera, which is out of the scope of this amendment. I can say that shareholders in companies are able to vote at their company’s AGM.
I did not pay tribute in my speech—and I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Prentis—to the brilliant political campaigns that were run by UNISON when I was in government. They were remarkable, and my support for opt-in does not diminish my admiration for them.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, very briefly, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Burns. I want to emphasise that, in a period of mass disillusion with mainstream parties, opt-in was actually a very important way of putting those parties on their guard that they had to inspire people to want to opt in. Relying on inertia, or not being in a situation where you feel you need to go out and win the support of people to opt in politically, is very dangerous, because it will create the kind of complacency that we have seen mainstream parties of all sides show over recent years.
I note that it would be dangerous—and I am sure that nobody is implying this—for the party of government, the Labour Party, to assume that it is any longer the party that represents the working class. Long gone are the days when that claim could be made, and I think that it would be better for that party to consider how it can inspire ordinary working people to support it, both at the ballot box but also in relation to something such as political funds. I had every sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Prentis of Leeds, talking about the difficulties of campaigning when you do not have enough money. Tell me about it: I have been doing it for years. I have not had a political fund to help, mind.
It all sounded very admirable, but it really did sound as though the noble Lord was discussing not so much UNISON but an activist campaign group, a particular group around particular issues. That is fine. I have no objection to that: I am involved in some of those campaigns, although not all of them. I have to go out and raise the funds in order to be able to carry on campaigning for things I believe in. I do not think it is right that trade unions use their political funds to pursue what are political issues beyond the issues of trade unionism. Trade unionism is a particular thing. It can inspire great political revolutions over the years, I agree, but it is not a hobby-horse for trade union bureaucrats to pursue the particular political issues that they enjoy or agree with.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I shall primarily speak to the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Cash in respect of political funds, but I will say in passing that I found the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the excellent speeches of my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lady Finn not just erudite but very compelling.
There is a challenge to try to understand what has significantly changed that has led the Government to make these epochal amendments to what has been accepted by Governments of all persuasions—including, as has been said, the Blair and Brown Governments—which will radically alter industrial relations.
Baroness Cash (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, those from my noble friend Lady Coffey—which I have signed, as she referred to—and those in the name of my noble friend Lord Jackson, as well as Amendments 222, 223 and 218A. I hope I have covered all of them. I also support this group in more general terms. I draw the Committee’s attention to my interests as declared in the register, in particular that I am a significant shareholder in a listed business, so I am an employer, and that I am a member of the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
I want to address what is a fundamental attack on one of the rights under the Human Rights Act by which we incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into this jurisdiction. There is a fundamental democratic right not to be forced to support a political party, either unwittingly or by coercion—though I am not by any stretch of the imagination suggesting that this is by coercion. My noble friends have referenced financial services and the noble Lord, Lord Burns, referenced issues with data protection. We know that there are major problems with fundamental infringements of people’s rights when we have opt-out scenarios. People unwittingly continue to subscribe to pay when they should not do so.
Unlike my noble friend Lady Coffey, who politely said that she was surprised by this government proposal, I am shocked, because some noble Lords on the Government Benches have as much knowledge of human rights and the European Convention on Human Rights as I do. They will know that, under Article 11, there is a right to free association. We are guaranteed both the right to associate freely and the right not to be compelled into supporting associations or political causes.
This has been the subject of a number of decisions in the European Court of Human Rights. I know the Prime Minister has talked tentatively about whether we will remain part of the court, but for the time being we are and therefore have to abide by its laws and decisions. It made it very clear in a decision called Young, James and Webster v United Kingdom in 1981 that compelled political donations are incompatible with Article 11, unless free and informed consent is given by the individual.
There may be those on the Government Benches who think that that is fine because it is covered by the period of notice and the person can then opt out, but it does not cover that. There is no mechanism at all in the Government’s proposals to facilitate any refund. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Prentis; I see that he is surprised by that comment, but there is no refund mechanism. The way that the measures are currently drafted means that there is a minimum notice period for an individual to be notified of their rights to opt out of up to eight weeks. After that, one payroll cycle is allowed before the opt-out takes place. That means there is the possibility of three months’ worth of subscription or levy being taken from an individual employee to contribute to the Labour Party. Let us not beat about the bush: this is a compelled donation to a political party.
Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)
Will the noble Baroness permit an intervention? As my noble friend Lord Prentis mentioned, there are 48 unions affiliated to the TUC; 13 of them also affiliate, subscribe and contribute to the funding of the Labour Party, and 35 do not. Most of those 35 have a political fund which they use to support their campaigning, but not to make contributions to the Labour Party.
Baroness Cash (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for that assistance. I therefore look forward to the amendment put forward by the Government to exempt those 13, given the law that I am explaining and the attack on the freedom of association that should be maintained in this country.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
Will the noble Baroness permit me to intervene? She spoke about Article 11 of the European Convention and freedom of association, and the right to join a trade union and be a member for the protection of one’s interests. This is spelled out in Article 11.1. She mentioned the case of Young, James and Webster v the United Kingdom, which established that there is a negative right not to become a member of a trade union, as well as a positive right to become a member. However, the European Court of Human Rights has never held in any case that a member of an organisation, a political party or a trade union can opt out of a particular payment that that organisation is making.
Baroness Cash (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention, but he is wrong. The European Court has ruled that it is not possible. Article 11 does not permit compelling any citizen of this country, or any member of a trade union, to make a payment by political association. That is simply not correct.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
Let me put it more respectfully: I disagree. That is not what the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights on Article 11 demonstrates. There is no right, if you are a member of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, to opt out of any contribution or expenditure it makes on any particular objective. There is no such right established under Article 11. You can opt out of being a member of the organisation, but you cannot opt out of what it has decided to spend its money on. All you can do is exercise your rights under its constitution to object or decide it should be spent on something else.
Baroness Cash (Con)
The noble Lord is, very respectfully, making interventions which do not follow the law. I will quote a couple of other cases because that may assist the debate: Sigurdsson v Iceland, and Sorensen and Rasmussen v Denmark. The noble Lord can join the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and whether or not he opts out is not a matter for this debate. We are talking about the freedom to join a trade union, and the asking of those who have signed up to be a member of a trade union to contribute to campaigning funds—political funds. It is that political association—the taking of funding for that political association—which infringes the Article 11 right.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
Forgive me, but those two cases do not demonstrate that. I am familiar with this jurisprudence; I suggest that the noble Baroness read the cases again.
Baroness Cash (Con)
I understand that in this House people sometimes disagree, and perhaps, respectfully, that is happening here. I can give way as many times as the noble Lord likes, but it is plain from the case law and the jurisprudence, and from how Article 11 is taught at law school, where I have taught it as a guest, that this is how freedom of association applies.
After an opt-out has been introduced, there is no refund mechanism available to cover the period during which the funds will be taken by 13 of the trade unions and passed to the Labour Party. At least we are now agreed that 13 of the unions will be giving the funds to the Labour Party. In those circumstances, we are compelling people to support it. It is because the Human Rights Act and the European Court jurisprudence intervened—that was part of the conversations when the opt-in was considered. Looking at the contributions, financial or otherwise, made during that period, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Prentis, for drawing our attention to the decrease in political funding that has ensued because of the change. We know that that is why this change back needs to be made, but that does not make it right.
Lord Monks (Lab)
I was around when the noble Lord, Lord Burns, was chairing his committee and I was involved on the fringes of some of the work that was done. From the unions’ side, we appreciated very much what he did and the work the committee did with his colleagues. Getting that kind of arrangement was a get out of jail card for us—a halfway house, if you like, which is still promoted.
We were aware of the history. In 1927, when the Conservative Government introduced opting in instead of opting out, there was a catastrophic fall in the number of people who contributed to the union political fund; that was the truth of it. Unions did not have the administrative superstructure to go around and re-recruit people into that kind of arrangement. That was repealed by the Labour Government at the end of the Second World War, such was the anger about 1927—it was about the first thing they did. Hartley Shawcross, the Attorney-General, unwisely said, “We are the masters now”, which caused a lot of controversy, so this is not a bloodless issue. This is about party funding and the sinews of keeping a great party going under a lot of pressure from all kinds of people.
We were very pleased, and warmly welcomed the work that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, did. We had made an offer that maybe all party-political funding should be looked at. If there was some uneasiness about aspects of Labour’s arrangements, there is certainly some uneasiness about Conservative Party arrangements, which are not noted for their clarity and openness and all the other things the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and others have been extolling as virtues, which they are trying to install into the union world. We hear a lot from the Conservative Party about deregulating business all over the place, but—
Baroness Finn (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I just make the point that all political donations have to be transparently declared. My noble friend sitting next to me can explain more, as treasurer of the Conservative Party, but they are all declared.
Lord Monks (Lab)
I look forward to that degree of clarity in Conservative Party funding. We could all be enlightened by the explanation that I believe is about to come. We are talking about an amount of—
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
We had an excellent debate 10 years ago. With great respect, the noble Lord, Lord Monks, said that the transparency and clarity of donations to the Conservative Party leave something to be desired. Can he please be specific about this?
Lord Monks (Lab)
I will not be specific about it because I do not want to generally insult people, but over the years, there has been some dodgy funding of the Conservative Party. Maybe something has been done about it; maybe it has not. The noble Lord will tell us in a moment, I am sure.
I will say something about the amount of money we are talking about, which the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, touched on. In 2016, when I was much more au fait with this debate than I probably am today, the contribution that the union member made to the Labour Party was not much more than the price of a pint of beer. It has gone up a little bit if it is 10 quid now, but it was a modest amount. Comparisons with financial services, as the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, has made, are wrong, because the sums of money we are talking about there are much greater, and refunds, and all the rest of it. The kind of administrative fee that would be required for that amount of donation seems ridiculous.
On this side, we very much see this as an attempt to restore some Labour Party funding streams. I do, anyway—I will not speak for the Front Bench. I think it is important that the Labour Party gets the funding that it requires. I believe that going back to 1945, 1946 and so on is the right way to go, so I support the Government and the Bill.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for not having spoken at Second Reading, although I have been watching this debate with great interest. As chairman of the Conservative Party, I am delighted that today we announced record donations into the Conservative Party. None of those donations was forced; none of them was given to us because we compelled people to give them to us; and they were not given to us because of an administrative system that prevented people taking their money out or opting out. It was because people voluntarily wanted to support the cause that we stand for.
On the same day that we announced record inflows, thanks in many instances to my noble friend Lord Leigh, the Labour Party also saw significant donations, not substantially to the level of the Conservatives’. I think half of the donations came from unions, but some came from a number of individuals, including in this House from the noble Lord, Lord Alli—who I cannot see in his place—who continues to support the Labour Party and is a good lesson for all Peers to support the parties which fostered them.
The point is that in our democracy, we live in an extraordinary country where voluntary contributions make up how parties are funded. At the essence, if you distort that, you have enormous problems with how the public perceive politics and the responsiveness that political parties need to show to the public who support them in the first place.
I am a great proponent of the union movement. I think it is an essential element of capitalism—it ensures that there is balance between labour and capital—but if you distort that, you distort the economy, nearly always to the negligence of the people who are members of those unions.
The reason I have not spoken before is that it had not actually occurred to me the sort of damage that this Government are trying to do to this country. I could not believe that it was going to be the case that people will be compelled, in effect, to join the Labour Party or to contribute to it—I had to sit in these debates and read back transcripts. We just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Monks, who said exactly this: this is absolutely about redressing the balance in terms of party funding and to fund the Labour Party.
By the way, I respect that openness. The unions paid for the Labour victory and now they want to have their message delivered; they want the legislation moulded in their way. That is brutal politics of a kind that, frankly, I am just a bit squeamish about—but I rather admire.
I ask the Minister: is it really true that she is expecting people to be compelled to donate to a political fund, and that there is no mechanism for some form of compensation or redress if they decide to opt out? In a world where we can subscribe instantly to Apple Music, or whatever it is, at the touch of a button, and we are compelled to ensure that people’s subscriptions are reviewed on a constant basis, certainly annually at the absolute minimum, probably quarterly or maybe even monthly—rightly so—is it true that this mechanism will be reviewed every 10 years? It cannot be true that the Government are proposing 10 years beforepeople can see whether they should review their paperwork for a subscription to a political fund. This is remarkable.
I am actually amazed at the audacity, and I slightly admire it, as I said, but if we want a strong democracy and political parties that actually have trust placed in them by the people of this country, this sort of chicanery and gerrymandering is extremely dangerous. The amendments that have been proposed by Cross-Benchers are exceptionally eminent in the sense of making sure that we have a fair system to ensure that unions can indeed represent themselves politically. They can and should build political funds to advance their aims and some of the aims they have advanced over the last century or so are admirable, and I applaud them. But this must not be a mechanism for compelled donation to the Labour Party. It would be a disaster for our democracy, it would not benefit our unions and it would not help our country in any way at all—that is why I support these amendments today.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments and congratulate the speakers today—in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Burns. I recall the debate some 10 years ago. I declare—although it has been declared for me—that I am senior treasurer of the Conservative Party and have been so for very many years.
The last time we had this debate, it was, shall we say, feisty. I was intervened on 12 times in one speech, which might be a bit of a record. It was a constructive debate, and I believe a solution was agreed. The noble Lord, Lord Monks, says it is a get out of jail for the unions. We wanted more and for it not just to be new members—we wanted it to be existing members—but a compromise was agreed that everybody felt was fair. I hope that in the spirit of this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Monks, reflects on his remarks and finds an opportunity to withdraw any suggestion that there is anything dodgy or not clear about political donations to our party—I would not make the same allegations about his party—because it is not the case. There is strict legislation on declaring donations and we are very careful to abide by it.
The world is an upside-down sort of world, is it not? In actual fact, the single largest donation to the Labour Party is not from unions—it is from an individual person who came to this country, made a lot of money and chose personally to give a large sum of money to the Labour Party. Good luck to him. To echo the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, we should commend and thank those people who wish to contribute politically to this country in whatever form they choose to do so, either going up and down streets waving leaflets and delivering them or choosing to give financially. Such people are good citizens to whom we owe a debt of gratitude.
The other upside-down world, of course, is the comment made by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, about shareholders. Public companies have an opt-in system. Every year, not every 10 years, shareholders have to vote for donations to be made to a political party if their company wishes to do it. So there is an opt-in for public companies, not that many public companies make donations to any political party—although I noticed in today’s submissions to the Electoral Commission that companies have chosen to give to the Labour Party, and good luck to them.
The history lesson that we have had is appropriate and relevant, because there is an element of toing and froing. The Burns report highlighted problems that had been in existence before the 2016 Act. It is worth reminding ourselves of those problems, because one would not want to see them again.
The Burns committee was told that the deal that existed between the Thatcher Government and the TUC had not been fulfilled, and that too many unions had failed to ensure that all union members were always aware of the fact that they did not need to contribute to the political fund. The then Government submitted written evidence that added that
“many unions that have a political fund are not transparent with members on their membership subscription forms about the existence of a political fund”,
and that
“their choice to opt-out of contributing to the fund; or the level of the member’s contribution towards the fund”
was not made clear. It stated that, of the 25 unions that had political funds in those days, 12 did not mention, on the subscription form,
“the existence of a political fund. Of the 11 unions that do reference a political fund … 5 do not make it clear that a member has a choice to opt-out”.
That was then, and that is not a situation that anyone, I think, would want to see come back—but there is a danger of that with this legislation.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the amendments seeking greater transparency for trade union members on where their money goes.
I support the retention of the status quo—so that people have to opt in—and maintaining the changes we saw made in 2016. I do so because these are moderate amendments. They do not attack the existence of the status quo or the political fund, which is, as is often announced on the websites of the unions, a campaigning fund. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Prentis, that it is made clear by UNISON and Unite to new members, when joining, what their fees are for. Certainly, it is clear to the public that some members are affiliated to the Labour Party, and some of the funds of political campaigning will indeed go to the Labour Party. I think the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, said that 13 were affiliated; I had the figure of 11 in my head, but that is only a small difference.
None of that is under attack; that is a subject for another debate. I would like to stress to your Lordships why I support the noble Lord, Lord Burns. This area has been very contentious for a century, and every single attempt to reach a settlement has involved compromise. Although one may think that the opting-in arrangement of the 1927 Act was against the interests of the trade unions, one has to remember that that was in the wake of the General Strike of 1926 and that the Conservative Party, which was the party of government, would not follow the inclination of many of its Back-Benchers—and, I think, one of its Front-Benchers, but I will not say whom —to get rid of the political fund. The Prime Minister of the day said, “We will not fire the first shot”.
That was an attempt to find a compromise, so that the trade unions could keep their political fund, continue to contribute to the Labour Party—which was a founder party and recognised as such by the Conservatives—and continue to campaign on the issues they judged important for their members. I agree that they have done great work, through their membership fees, on pensions and so on. Much of the settlement on the national insurance system not only drew on trade union knowledge and experience in practice but used their funds to nationalise —which I think was a less good idea.
We should have a spirit of compromise and reflect the compromise that was made in 2016. If we go down the route that the Government propose, I hope that the party on my side will again seek to bring in a compromise, because the laws of this Parliament should be made in the interest of transparency for all those affected by them. That goes for trade unionists in the workplace, who should have to opt in to a scheme in the interest of transparency. I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I will be extremely brief, as the dinner hour is upon us and there are—as we say—strangers in the House.
While I recognise the importance of transparency to inform members’ choice regarding funds, this group of amendments raises serious questions about proportionality. Amendments 216YC and 216YD would introduce notably higher thresholds for political resolutions, requiring support from a majority of all eligible members, rather than just those voting, and mandating new resolutions every five years. These are significant changes from the current practice. Likewise, Amendments 221 and 223—expertly explained by the noble Lord, Lord Burns—seek to reduce opt-out notices from 10 years to one or two.
While the intention behind these proposals is clear, the impact warrants careful consideration. Other issues have been slightly sidetracked. There are fundamental issues that I would like the Minister to address head-on. These issues are at the nub of trade unions and political funds, so we need some clarity on them from the Dispatch Box.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, what an important debate this has been. I think 14 noble Lords have participated, starting with my noble friend Lady Coffey. She dealt with Clause 58 in particular, whereas most of the rest of the debate has been around Clause 59.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Burns. His speech dominated the debate, as he set out so clearly the history of what he described as the 2016 compromise—which in fact it was—that Clause 59 now seeks to overturn. I accept the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Prentis of Leeds, about the importance of campaigning and seeing full participation in that area. I am also very grateful to my noble friend Lady Finn for coming specially on her birthday to remind us all of the role she played on the Burns committee. Despite interruptions, she got across a series of key points about that compromise. Those who were interrupting her did not seem to realise that shareholders have to approve any political donations made by companies—but never mind.
I move on quickly to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and my noble friends Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lady Cash, who had a fascinating exchange with the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, speaking now as a practising lawyer, that my noble friend Lady Cash is right: if money is taken for any period without knowledge or consent, freedom of association has been removed—it does not matter whether it is for a week, a month or a decade. In a way, though, that was a side issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Monks, then took us way back in time. We all always benefit from the noble Lord, Lord Monks. I still have the guilty feeling that I caused a cartoon to be shown in the Guardian showing him getting into bed with me, in which his was the face on a huge cart horse. I was Secretary of State for Employment, and I was being accused by the Guardian of being too nice to the trade union movement by getting into bed with the noble Lord, Lord Monks—but we are not in the same bed tonight.
We heard from my noble friend Lord Johnson of Lainston, who really put the record straight and elevated the sort of smears that were thrown—usually from a sedentary position—from the party opposite in that context. My noble friends Lord Leigh and Lady Lawlor did the same. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, for really trying to encapsulate what has been a very complicated and detailed debate.
Let us be clear on one thing—and it is up to the Minister to respond to all the very valid points that have been raised: Clause 59 says that workers will be presumed to consent to union political contributions unless they actively opt out. This is a fundamental shift. It reverses the presumption of consent in a way that would never be tolerated were it an employer imposing such terms on a worker. Where, then, is the Government’s concern for free choice, transparency and the dignity of the individual to act without coercion? Surely, if we are to be consistent in protecting worker autonomy, we must apply the same standards to trade unions as we do to employers. Anything less is not principle; it is partisanship.
The Bill includes provisions that would require employers to provide workers with written statements outlining their trade union rights on day one of employment and at other points that the Government see fit. But until Amendment 218 comes along, that principle appears to vanish entirely so far as political fund contributions are concerned. A worker can be enrolled into a union and begin contributing to political causes, most often aligned with one single political party, without ever being clearly and directly told what that money supports or how to stop contributing. I believe that to be a serious democratic deficit.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Burns, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for tabling their amendments.
I start by speaking to Amendment 217. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Burns, for the constructive engagement that we have had on the topic of political funds in recent weeks and for his thoughtful contributions to this debate. I echo the points a number of noble Lords have made on that. I am grateful for his considerable work in chairing the Trade Union Political Funds and Political Party Funding Committee in 2016, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, for her work on that committee.
However, the Government’s view is that the political fund changes brought in by the Trade Union Act 2016 had the impact of limiting unions’ ability to raise funds to enable them to campaign on political issues that were important to them. Therefore, as we have been debating, the Bill repeals the requirement for trade unions to opt out their members from contributions to political funds, unless they have expressly requested to opt in. This will mean that new trade union members will be automatically opted in to contributions to a political fund unless they expressly opt out.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, talked about Churchill’s quote on avoiding tit for tat in parliamentary democracies. However, what we are proposing broadly restores the position before the passage of the Trade Union Act 2016, which had been the position for the previous 70 years. So our proposal is a very long- standing set of propositions. I should also say to noble Lords that the change we are proposing will apply only to new members of a trade union, with the current opt- out status of existing members remaining unchanged.
Several noble Lords have described workers as being “compelled” to make political donations to the Labour Party. This is simply not the case. It remains a decision for each individual trade union member that they are free to make as to whether they wish to contribute to any political fund of a trade union.
The Government have been mindful of the conclusions of the Trade Union Political Funds and Political Party Funding Committee, and indeed we have learned lessons from that report. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, and others, that we have been careful to draft the Bill to ensure that new members will continue to be notified of their right to opt out on the membership form that they will have to fill in when they join the union. In line with the recommendation in the report of the noble Lord’s committee, the membership form will also have to make it clear that opting out will not affect other aspects of their membership.
This is a substantial change to the legal requirements that existed pre 2016. These changes to the system that existed before 2016 should help to address concerns that trade union members were not always aware of their right to opt out of the political fund. Unions will also be required to send an opt-out reminder notice to members on a 10-year basis.
We have been clear on our intention to substantially repeal the Trade Union Act 2016, as set out in our Make Work Pay plan. Retaining the automatic opt-out, as proposed by this amendment, would frustrate the goal and maintain unnecessary and burdensome requirements on the way that trade unions manage their political funds.
I should have responded earlier to one of the other questions from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, about the Government’s impact assessment. The Government’s impact assessment on the repeal of the Trade Union Act set out:
“The return to an ‘opt-out’ option for political fund contributions for new union members with political funds may increase the proportions of new members contributing to the political fund in these unions”.
So we have made an assessment of that.
I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, and others, that what we are proposing is clearly not the same as consumers spending billions of pounds each week on unwanted subscriptions due to unclear terms and conditions and complicated cancellation routes. What we are proposing here is that a union, which is a collective of workers, and its political fund should be considered in that light. If a union has a political fund, its members have control over how their political fund is spent, through the democratic structures of the union. Unions put considerable effort into raising engagement in their democratic processes, which any member is free to participate in, meaning that they are able to decide on how their political fund is used.
I am grateful for my noble friend Lord Prentis for reminding us of that and indeed giving us some very good examples of how his political fund has been used in campaigning. He and others also made the point that less than half of the unions that have political funds affiliate to the Labour Party. Indeed, only a minority of Labour Party funds at the last election came from unions’ political funds.
I turn to Amendments 221, 222, 223, 223A and 223B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. Section 84A specifies that a union must send information notices reminding its members of the right to opt out of contributing to the union’s political fund, should one exist. Amendments 221, 222 and 223 would introduce the requirement on trade unions to send those notices to members every two years, as opposed to every 10 years, as specified in the Bill. We acknowledge that the removal of the 10-year political fund review ballots could reduce awareness among trade union members of their right to opt out of the political fund contributions. This is why we amended the Bill to require that unions send opt-out reminders on a 10-year basis.
The Government believe that 10 years strikes the appropriate balance between maintaining awareness among members of their right to opt out of contributing to a political fund while minimising the administrative and cost burdens on unions of providing such a notification. It also reflects the current arrangements for the 10-yearly review of ballots and recognises that the Bill will ensure that new members will already have been made aware of their right to opt out when they apply for union membership.
Amendment 223A would require unions to issue opt-out information notices that comply with specific requirements. The Bill will require unions to issue opt-out notices that comply with the rules of the union. Unions must provide the certification officer with a copy of their opt-out notice. Members of a trade union will be able to complain to the certification officer if they do not believe that an opt-out notice complies with Section 84A of the Trade Union Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. In those circumstances, the certification officer can issue an order to remedy this failure if the complaint is upheld. So this amendment is unnecessary as there are already requirements for opt-out notices that unions must comply with.
Amendment 223B would grant the certification officer the capacity to conduct audits of opt-out notices to monitor compliance with Section 84A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, as amended by the Bill. The legislative framework as amended by the Bill will allow the certification officer to investigate complaints from members about failure to comply with Section 84A, but the power to conduct audits is unnecessary and disproportionate to the rest of the powers of the certification officer, who will continue to hold their powers after the repeal of the Trade Union Act.
Amendment 218, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, would require trade union members to confirm their ongoing willingness to contribute to a political fund on an annual basis, and they would need to be given an annual notice about their right to opt out of the political fund. As I have mentioned, we believe that requiring unions to issue opt-out reminders to members every 10 years is proportionate and aligns with the current frequency of 10-year review ballots. The Government also believe that, if members have joined a union and are notified of their right to opt out, their decision not to opt out clearly reflects their consent to make political fund contributions. Asking members to reconfirm their willingness to contribute to the union’s political fund on an annual basis would impose an onerous and unnecessary burden on unions and their members. Indeed, members are not currently required to restate on a regular basis their preference to either opt in or opt out of political fund contributions.
Amendment 218B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, would alter Section 84 to require unions to provide members with a defined means of opting out of political fund contributions, including a digital option and allowing the certification officer to issue guidance or prescribe minimum technical standards on the opt-out notice. We are already clear in the Bill that members of a trade union are able to be served an opt-out notice via post, email, completion of an electronic form or such other electronic means as may be prescribed. Therefore, we are already making it easy and straight- forward for members to express their decision to opt out should they so desire. The certification officer already issues a set of model rules for political funds, and the rules of every union’s political fund must be approved by the certification officer.
Amendment 218C would create a statutory right for members not to suffer any detriment when deciding to opt out of political fund contributions, and it would allow members to complain to the certification officer where they feel that that right has been breached. Such an amendment is unnecessary, given that Section 82 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 already compels unions to inform members in their union rules that they shall not be placed at a disadvantage or disability compared with other union members, nor will they be excluded from benefits, if they decide not to contribute to the political fund. Members can also complain to the certification officer if that rule is breached.
Amendment 218D would require unions to issue an opt-out reminder notice on the day that a member joins the union. Through Clause 59, which amends Section 82 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act, we will require unions to inform members of their right to opt out of political fund contributions on any forms, including electronic forms, that members must complete in order to join a union. This requirement will make the need to provide new members with an opt-out notice on joining a union superfluous.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
Can the Minister clarify—to be absolutely crystal clear—that, by removing Section 32ZB, union members will have absolutely no idea where campaign money is being spent?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thought I answered that: the information on the expenditure of the political fund will still have to be given to the certification officer.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
With great respect, I asked whether union members would have clarity as to where their money was being spent.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I am absolutely confident that unions’ accounts, which will include the political funds, will be available to all members in the usual way. I am sure that is a requirement.
Baroness Bousted (Lab)
I can inform the noble Lord that unions have to produce an executive report for the membership every year. That is available to all the membership; it is on the union’s website. In most unions, by the rulebook, the executive report is the first thing debated at conference. All the union’s activities and expenditure are described and explained to the membership in that report, including the amount of the political fund and the expenditure of the political fund. It is the same with the international fund and the campaigning fund. This is a requirement, as part of unions’ democratic processes, to make the executive accountable to the membership, and the information will be contained in the executive report.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
I am grateful for that. I am sure that the Minister will agree that, if that is true—and it certainly was not pre-2016—there can be no resistance to it being included—
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
It was certainly not disclosed in the political fund accounts, which are not the same as the union accounts; they are separate accounts. Those political fund accounts did not specify where the campaign funds were spent.
Baroness Bousted (Lab)
The noble Lord asked where the members would get the information. That is the question to which I have replied. He is now saying that they are not disclosed in another place, but that was not the question I was answering.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I think we have answered that question in quite a lot of detail now. I hope that noble Lords feel that I have answered these points in sufficient detail.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
We appreciate the detail that the Minister is going into, but a number of questions have not been answered. Can she undertake to write to noble Lords with the answers? Also, can she clarify whether, if a union member fails to opt out of contributing to the political fund on day 1, they could then be bound not to have the opportunity to opt out again for 10 years?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I am absolutely confident that union members can opt out at any time, not just every 10 years. It is the reminder that goes every 10 years, rather than the requirement for them to remain.
We have had a very detailed, long debate, and I have attempted to answer all the questions noble Lords have raised. If there are any outstanding issues, I will write. In the meantime, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, to withdraw her Amendment 216YC.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this extensive debate. There are still a number of issues on which there is not agreement, either on the nature of the legislation or the desired effect.
I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Burns. I am conscious that this is going over old ground, but he is right to resurrect it and to put his concerns forward. On the exchanges between my noble friend Lady Cash and the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, in any legal debate, normally we come up with one winner. However, in this case, it is fair to refer the noble Lord to paragraph 251 of the Bill’s human rights memorandum, where the Government specifically state that:
“Implicit in Article 11 is a right not to contribute to a trade union’s political fund”.
I would be grateful if the Minister would, unusually perhaps, be open to sharing the legal or policy advice on the bracketed portion of that paragraph: that
“the opt-out will take effect on 1 January of the following year”.
That is why my noble friend Lady Cash was pressing the point that continuing to have to pay would not, according to various judgments, be compatible with Article 11.
That said, I am sure that we will return to a lot of this on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Free School Meals
(2 days, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Government for this opportunity to understand the Statement on free school meal expansion rather better. I acknowledge that parents and children in receipt of universal credit will welcome the Government’s announcement, and many across the House will welcome a review of school food standards. However, I would be grateful if the Minister clarified a number of points about how this change will work in practice.
As the Minister knows, transitional protections established in 2018 ensured that pupils who were eligible for free school meals would keep them during the universal credit rollout. This nearly doubled free school meal eligibility, from 13.6% to 25.7%. The Department for Education has now announced that these protections will end in September 2026 with the introduction of the new policy. However, it is not clear how many children will be affected by this.
Dr Tammy Campbell, director for early years, inequalities and well-being at the Education Policy Institute, said:
“To the best of our knowledge, the Department for Education has not fully assessed the number of children who will cease to be eligible for FSM as a result of the conclusion of transitional protections”.
She added:
“It is possible that the extension of eligibility will largely serve to balance out the cessation of transitional protections, rather than making significant numbers of children newly eligible”.
Can the Minister confirm whether the department has done such an assessment and, if so, what are the figures that it revealed? If it has not done one, when will that happen?
Can the Minister clarify the position in relation to pupil premium funding, since eligibility for free school meals is currently the gateway to the pupil premium? The pupil premium, which was a significant achievement of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition Government, provides £1,480 per primary school pupil and over £1,000 per secondary school pupil. My understanding is that the Government initially said that the link between the two will be broken, but then said in a second announcement that the total amount will remain unchanged. Can the Minister confirm exactly the Government’s position, how that will work in practice and whether the Government are indeed committed to the full £3 billion or so of pupil premium funding continuing?
The Government’s announcement included other important figures relating to child poverty, including that this change will lift 100,000 children out of poverty. Again, I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm the timescale for that change. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has confirmed that, in the longer term, it believes the policy will lift 100,000 children out of poverty, but it cautioned that, due to the phasing out of the transitional measures which I mentioned earlier, the short-term costs and benefits are likely to be far more limited. Christine Farquharson, associate director of the IFS, said that we will
“not see anything like 100,000 children lifted out of poverty next year”.
How long does the Minister think it will take to reach the Government’s targets? How many children does she believe will be lifted out of poverty next year?
Finally, can the Minister confirm how this policy applies to holiday activities, food funding and home to school transport? Will schools and local authorities continue to receive pupil premium and home to school transport funding based on the existing free school meals threshold or the expanded criteria? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, we very much welcome the Minister’s Statement. As we heard, over half a million more children will benefit from a free, nutritious meal every day. The Government have estimated that this will put £500 back into parents’ pockets. In the coalition, as we heard, we introduced a free meal for every key stage 1 pupil and prepared to extend this to key stage 2. This is excellent news for parents and their children.
As a primary school head teacher, I was always concerned that the number of pupils’ parents who did not take up the free school meal entitlement was quite alarming. Despite numerous personal letters to those parents, newsletters and all the rest, they still did not take up their entitlement. That is why auto-enrolment of free school meals at a national level ensures that every child gets the meal they are entitled to. Will the Government now follow the example of many successful local authorities and introduce auto-enrolment for meals, and if not, why not?
As we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, many vulnerable children spend many weeks each year not in school during the holidays. Will the Government take the opportunity to end holiday hunger and perhaps look at the feasibility of funding for meals during school holidays?
Children on free school meals, particularly those in more affluent areas, often feel embarrassed and stigmatised, and are sometimes bullied, because they are having free meals. Will the Minister assure the House that confidentiality will be maintained at all times for those who are entitled to a free meal?
I realise that the Statement was about free school lunches, but can the Minister update us on the number of children receiving breakfast and the timescale for rolling this out to more schools? The Minister is probably aware of the letter from a whole host of children’s charities about the problems of free breakfast for those children with special educational needs, which I have no doubt will come up during the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill.
We on these Benches have been pushing hard for the provision of free school meals in schools; it was in our manifesto. It is a victory for thousands of passionate campaigners, and the Government have listened.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, when this Government came into office there were 900,000 more children living in poverty than there had been when the Labour Government left office in 2010. This was a stain on our country. It was a terrible way for those children to live, preventing them having what they needed day-to-day and limiting their opportunities for the future. That is why this Government have announced the biggest expansion of free school meal eligibility in England in a generation, because we can and we must end the scourge of child poverty.
That is why we will give every child whose family is in receipt of universal credit the entitlement to free school meals. That means not simply meals in mouths but, crucially, money back into the pockets of parents and families on an unprecedented scale. It means that 500,000 more children per year will be entitled to free school meals. In response to the noble Baroness’s question, it means that, over the course of this Parliament, 100,000 children will be lifted out of poverty.
I commend the approach of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, to asking questions to gain some confidence and elucidation from me—an approach very different from that of the shadow Education Secretary, who did not allow the facts to get in the way of her tweeting completely erroneous information about the Government’s proposals. I will respond to the specific questions raised by the noble Baroness.
First, we have been clear that transitional protections will now be extended to 2026, when all children whose families are in receipt of universal credit will be entitled to free school meals. At that point, we will bring to an end the transitional protections that were put in place to protect entitlement as universal credit rolled out.
Secondly, the Government will continue to spend £3 billion on pupil premium and disadvantage this year. In 2026, the total will remain the same, on the basis of the level of those who would have been entitled to free school meals. Over the longer term, we will take action to consider the most appropriate way to distribute the funding necessary to respond to disadvantage and support schools in a range of ways, so that they can use it to help ensure that all children can succeed, regardless of their disadvantage.
The holiday activity fund will also remain at existing levels. It will enable local authorities to have, as they already do, the flexibility and funding to ensure provision for children who need it.
The entitlement to home school transport will remain the same, based on the current eligibility criteria post 2026, so no children will lose their entitlement to extended home school transport.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, talked about take-up. First, it is likely that the simplicity of now basing the entitlement on universal credit means that it will be much clearer to families, when they claim universal credit, that they are automatically entitled to free school meals. In addition, the Government are also improving the ability for not only local authorities but parents and families to check their eligibility more clearly than they have been able to until this point.
Lord Storey (LD)
If we find that that is not having the take-up that we hope for, will the Government look at auto-enrolment?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The Government are extending the entitlement to free school meals because we want children to benefit from them. We will keep under review the extent to which those free school meals and all the benefits that come with them are being taken up.
The noble Lord made a point about the stigma that some children and families feel. I know that many schools are—all schools should be—very careful about the way in which they identify which children are eligible for free school meals and which are not. We have moved some way from the terrible times when those children eligible for free school meals had to sit at separate tables and all the awful things that I know some people have experienced or certainly heard of. Schools will work hard to make sure that there is confidentiality and that that stigma is removed.
On the point about breakfast clubs, we have ensured that, from this April, there are 750 early adopter breakfast clubs across the country, having significantly increased the investment in those breakfast clubs to £30 million. As the noble Lord says, we will be able to consider this and the further rollout of breakfast clubs in more detail when we come to that part of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which will put the Government’s intention to ensure that all children in primary schools can benefit from breakfast clubs into legislation.
This considerable investment in our children is a significant sign of this Government’s commitment to tackling the scourge of child poverty. It is, as the Prime Minister says, a “down payment” on the Government’s child poverty strategy and it is symbolic of the difference that a Labour Government make.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I warmly welcome the extension of free school meals. It is important for children and for parents in poverty. I very much welcome what my noble friend has said about it being a down payment on the child poverty strategy, but I echo my Commons colleagues who argued that it cannot be a substitute for the abolition of the two-child limit on universal credit. Given that the real benefit of the free school meals extension will not be felt until September 2026, that it is estimated that over 100 children are falling into poverty every day that the two-child limit continues, and that parents and children are really struggling now, will my noble friend please impress on the Chancellor and the Prime Minister the need for urgent action on the two-child limit?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I say to my noble friend that, as I think she has conceded, this considerable investment in our children is urgent action on tackling the issue of child poverty—as have been the Government’s investment in breakfast clubs already; our plans to limit the cost of school uniforms; the increase in the national minimum wage, adding an additional £1,400 to the income of those poorest families; the extension of the entitlement to free childcare; the uprated benefits this year; and the way in which the Government has supported 700,000 of the poorest families by introducing a fair repayment rate on universal credit deductions. But I agree with her that there is more to do. That is why the child poverty task force is currently looking at all the levers that could be used to support children out of poverty, including income, housing, energy costs and the availability of work for our poorest families. This is, as I have already emphasised, the latest step to put extra money into people’s pockets, building on action that this Government have already taken. It is a down payment on our child poverty strategy, where work continues, and the Government will have more to say.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I quote from the Statement that
“it is an investment in our children’s futures. It sets them free from the worries and strains of growing up in poverty”.
Does the Minister agree that, if this is the Government’s aim, there should be compulsory financial education in schools about pensions? A £50 pension contribution every month from the age of 18 can produce £363,000 at retirement age. The excellent brief last year from the House of Lords Library stated that there were
“concerns have been raised that financial education is not being adequately provided”.
How will the Government ensure that education on pensions is being properly taught and help to end poverty?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
On Thursday, I think I will have the opportunity to answer a Question in this House on financial education in schools. Of course, I agree with the noble Earl that it is important that children develop the mathematical and business skills to understand the decisions that they then need to make about their own and their family’s money, and he makes an important point about pension contributions —notwithstanding his argument that young people should start them from the age of 18. I am not quite sure whether, in primary school, you can embed in a child’s mind the significance of that, but he makes an important point about ensuring that people understand the importance of pensions. Of course, hopefully, those children will look to their grandparents and the additional funding that they will receive as a result of this Government’s ability to maintain the triple lock, and they will see that investing in a pension is a good thing to do.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I very much welcome this Statement. It really is good news. I particularly welcome the look at nutritional standards. We talked about resources in, but, in education, we use free school meals as a measurement not only for money going into the school but for attainment levels, and that has become quite a considered and important way of monitoring performance and improvement. Have the Government given any thought to how having so many more children entitled to free school meals will affect that set of statistics, and does more work need to be done on that?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend makes two important points. First, she is right that, alongside this announcement, we have also said that we think now is the right time to review the nutritional standards for school food. My ministerial colleagues have already begun work with stakeholders on scoping out what will happen there and how those standards can be brought up to date. It is an important point that quite often accountability measures—analysis and monitoring of attainment—is based on a proxy of free school meals for disadvantage. The department will look at other ways of measuring that disadvantage and the way in which that can then be used to ensure attainment. Even more importantly, as I am sure my noble friend will have noticed, the Secretary of State is absolutely clear that the most disadvantaged groups need to have a better deal and to be supported to perform better in our schools than has been the case until this point, and she will do everything necessary not only to measure how effective that is, but to ensure that it happens as well.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I very much welcome this announcement, as others have done, because, in the words of the Statement, it is not just anti poverty but pro learning. As chair of the E-ACT multi-academy trust, I see the context of too many children’s lives coming through our school gates every day. I also note the disconnection with pupil premium and free school meals eligibility. What advice does the Minister have for schools wanting to run registration campaigns for pupil premium without the literal carrot of free school meals?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is right of course about the importance of the contribution to learning. I think it is hard to envisage how children can focus on the learning that needs to happen without having nutritious, good food inside them both first thing in the morning from our breakfast clubs and of course at lunchtime as well. The important point about the pupil premium, as my noble friend will know very well, is that, while it has been allocated and designated on the basis of individual pupils’ entitlements, it is spent within schools on a range of different activities. It is not attached to a single pupil. That is why I think the Government will want to undertake some serious thinking about how to maintain and improve the support that is available for ensuring that children who come from disadvantaged backgrounds get the support in schools that they can, without depending in the long term on the link to entitlement for free school meals. Of course, in the short term, not least because free school meal entitlement based on the current criteria lasts for six years, there will be a considerable amount of time when that could be used to allocate pupil premium, but there needs to be work on ensuring that funding for disadvantage can continue for students to be used as effectively as possible by schools.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I join the congratulations to my noble friend and the Government. This is very good news at a time when good news is particularly welcome. I also welcome the welcome from the Lib Dem Front Bench and the very responsible and sincere questions about how many children will benefit from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. Does my noble friend agree that compulsory education for primary and secondary school children was one of the greatest things about the post-war, cross-party human rights consensus? Does she also agree that we would not dream of charging children or parents for heating, security and pencils during the compulsory school day and therefore it was always a little odd that food was charged for? Given the concerns about the number of children who benefit, stigmatisation et cetera and all the obvious logic that we have heard from noble friends about the learning benefits as well as the anti-poverty benefits of nutrition in school, might we one day, with this level of consensus, aspire to—my noble friend chuckles because she knows where I am going with this—universal free school meals for every child or young person in compulsory education?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
One of the things I have noticed about this House is the ambition of noble Lords. They are not satisfied with the status quo. In fact, they are not satisfied with the next stage of development; they push for more.
My noble friend will understand that this big increase in entitlement represents a considerable financial investment in children by the Government. There is, of course, entitlement to universal free school meals for infant-aged children. For the time being, we will have to celebrate, and ensure that we properly implement, this increase in entitlement, but I note the ambition of my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti and other noble friends on this issue.
Employment Rights Bill
Tuesday 10th June 2025
(2 days, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberEmployment Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 81-VIII Eighth Marshalled list for Committee - (6 Jun 2025)
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I rise to express my deep concern about the inclusion of the clause repealing Section 116B of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, and to urge that it be removed in its entirety from the Bill. The clause does not merely tidy up legislation or modernise outdated provisions, it seeks to dismantle a vital safeguard that upholds the principle that taxpayer funds should not be used to subsidise the activities of private organisations, no matter how long-standing or worthy those organisations may be.
Section 116B was introduced to ensure that where public sector employers agree to deduct trade union subscriptions directly from employees’ pay, a service commonly known as check-off, the administrative cost of doing so is reimbursed by the union. This is a reasonable and proportionate expectation. After all, unions are private membership organisations. It is not the role of the taxpayer to underwrite the cost of maintaining their finances, especially when alternative methods of payment, such as direct debit, are readily available and commonly used by the unions themselves. Repealing this provision would, in effect, shift the cost burden for this private financial arrangement on to public sector employers and, by extension, the taxpayer. These are costs that would be no longer recoverable, whether they involve payroll staff time, IT systems or administrative oversight.
Although each individual deduction might seem minor, across large public bodies—for example, the NHS, schools, local authorities or Whitehall departments —these costs accumulate. The public purse, as noble Lords opposite do not need reminding, is already under immense pressure and it should not be expected to shoulder this additional financial responsibility. There is a very real risk that this repeal, however well-intentioned, would result in taxpayers unknowingly subsidising trade union operations.
Moreover, Section 116B introduced a measure of transparency and accountability into the system. It ensured that unions have to make active choices about how they collect their subscriptions and whether to invest in alternative systems, such as direct debit. It also gave employees greater awareness of and control over how they supported union activity. Removing this provision without putting any comparable mechanisms in place risks eroding that transparency. It suggests a return to a one-size-fits-all approach in which the employer bears the cost and the worker has little visibility over the arrangements.
There is also the issue of equity. Public sector employers are distinct in that they are funded by the state and their accountability is to the taxpayer. In the private sector where check-off arrangements still exist, employers and unions are free to negotiate the terms of such systems, including where the cost should be reimbursed. Why should public employers uniquely be placed in a position where they must provide these services at their own expense without any form of compensation? It is a contradiction that undermines the rationale for removing Section 116B.
The proposed repeal would also remove the flexibility that currently exists in the system. Under Section 116B, the Secretary of State has the power to make regulations specifying exceptions, such as for devolved Administrations or specific categories of public bodies. That allows the provision to be adapted in a way that respects local autonomy; for example, in Wales, where different arrangements have been supported by the devolved Government. By removing the entire provision, this clause strips away that flexibility and imposes a blunt uniformity that does not reflect the complexities of public sector governance across the United Kingdom.
Finally, we must consider the broader message that this repeal sends. It risks creating the impression, fair or not, that trade unions are being afforded preferential treatment and being allowed to impose their operating costs on to the taxpayer without scrutiny. At a time when public trust in institutions is fragile and when every pound of public spending is rightly under the microscope, this is a deeply unhelpful signal to send.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for posing arguments against Clause 60 standing part of the Bill.
This clause seeks to repeal Section 15 of the Trade Union Act 2016 by amending the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to remove Section 116B. Section 15 required trade unions to pay public sector employers where they administer payroll deductions for trade union subscriptions, known as check-off. It further required that this service be made available only where workers have the option to pay their union subscriptions by other means.
The Trade Union (Deduction of Union Subscriptions from Wages in the Public Sector) Regulations 2024 were introduced as a cost-saving measure, with estimated annual savings of £1.6 million, totalling £12 million over the following 10 years. However, as the impact assessment acknowledged, the regulations would bring a cumulative cost of £17 million to public sector employers and trade unions over that period. This is far higher than the estimated cost savings.
The current system places bureaucratic processes on both trade unions and public sector employers that can be clearly simplified to support productive trade union relations. There should be no costs to employers associated with withdrawing the check-off regulations. Employers will have the choice to continue with or amend any agreed arrangements regarding the deduction of union subscriptions from their employees’ wages, in discussion with their recognised trade unions.
We feel that there is a need to simplify this process, which is what our proposals intend to do. While I thank the noble Lord for this very short debate, I urge him to support this clause, for the reasons I have set out.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the Minister for her explanation, although I am not particularly persuaded.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I have tabled a number of probing amendments to Clause 61. As I alluded to earlier, I take the view that the amendments are not unhelpful but should be seen through the prism of fairness, balance, proportionality and reasonableness. There is the possibility that, as drafted, it could plausibly be argued that the Bill’s balance is very much in favour of not just employees and union members but unions themselves as corporate bodies and organisations, rather than employers.
We are on our eighth day in Committee, and we have discussed on a number of occasions the less than benign economic circumstances faced by many businesses, including small businesses. The situation is deteriorating. Pretty much every week, there is worse economic data than one would hope for, particularly for the jobs market and the levels of employment and potential unemployment.
Therefore, anything that the Government do—and certainly this Bill represents a very far-reaching change to the employment relations regime—to make things more difficult for small and medium-sized enterprises, and businesses generally, to employ people should be a cause for concern for Members of your Lordships’ House.
I will briefly go through the amendments. Amendment 224 would qualify the right to time off for union officials with a reasonableness test. I can see that most relationships between employers and union representatives are positive, based on mutual respect and it was ever thus. Therefore, this will not be a problem for the vast bulk of employers. However, when I was a local councillor, I had to rely on the Employment Rights Act 1996 to enforce my right to attend a number of meetings held during the day—in my case, at Ealing Borough Council, although I was an alternate member of the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority, which met across the road at County Hall. As a young working man, it was sometimes very difficult to get time off, and I understand that we went in the right direction in guaranteeing the right to time off. Equally, reasonableness is key, and this amendment speaks to that.
Amendment 225 would qualify the right to the provision of facilities for union officials with an appropriateness test. Again, this reflects a real-world experience of the discrete circumstances affecting a business at the time that the request is made. It might not be appropriate for a business to provide a room, audio-visual facilities or materials. This would be easier for a big company, which has a bespoke budget for HR training et cetera, than for a much smaller commercial entity, which might struggle to provide a similar level of facilities for trade union officials.
Amendments 226, 227 and 228 would reverse the burden of proof in disputes over the reasonableness of requested time off for union activities, and therefore there would be more of a balance for making the case for facilities being provided. I do not want to delay the Committee at this relatively late juncture; the amendments stand on their own merits.
Amendment 229 would qualify the right to time off for union learning representatives, again with a reasonableness test. In past debates, I mentioned my admiration for the Workers’ Educational Association and the great work it did in empowering working people to improve their life and their life chances, which is very important. However, a reasonableness test makes sure that it can be accommodated in a way which will not undermine the commercial viability of a business, while at the same time assisting individual workers and their representatives to deliver education and training outcomes.
Amendment 230 would qualify the right to the provision of facilities for union learning representatives, again with an appropriateness test.
Amendments 231, 232 and 233 would reverse the burden of proof in disputes over the reasonableness of requested time off for union learning representatives. It would be for the union representatives to explain why their request for facilities and learning resources was reasonable rather than the other way round.
These are probing amendments. I know I have said it before, but it bears repetition that these are not wrecking amendments. They do not alter substantially the kernel of the Bill, which is—and I take Ministers on their word—to improve the working lives of people, as in the report, Make Work Pay. I accept that premise and that Ministers sincerely want to do that, but these amendments are an attempt to rebalance between the workforce, their representatives and employers in a fair and equitable way. On that basis, I beg to move Amendment 224.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I oppose the question that Clause 62 should stand part of the Bill, with the intention of removing provisions which compel employers to allow time off for trade union equality reps. To note, I am not opposed to trade union facilities time per se, and I am actually not objecting to Clause 61 in relation to learning reps.
My concern is specifically on the nature of equality as has been interpreted by the trade unions in recent years, the divisive nature of their adherence to identity politics, for example, and the ideologically contentious implementation of prescriptive policies, often setting one group of workers against another. Trade union priorities under the auspices of fighting for equality have been skewed, to say the least.
The wording in this unfeasibly long clause states at subsection (12)(b)(i) that:
“‘equality’, in relation to a workplace, means … the elimination of discrimination, harassment and victimisation … in accordance with the Equality Act 2010”.
You would think I would have nothing to disagree with there, yet, time after time in the last few years, what we have actually seen is the discrimination and victimisation of women workers that has been at best ignored and too often actively abetted by trade unions’ own version of inclusive equality. They have in fact ignored the Equality Act.
Let me use as an example an incident that happened in May 2024 at Epsom and St Helier University Hospital. A black female nurse, Jennifer Melle, indirectly called a six-foot transgender patient “Mister” while on the phone to a consultant. The patient, whom I will call Mr X, was having treatment on the ward, having been transferred from a male prison. He was chained to two guards. Mr X is serving a sentence for luring young boys into sex acts on the internet while pretending to be a woman. For Ms Melle’s alleged misgendering, Mr X, the convict, violently lunged at her, screaming, “Do not call me Mister, I’m an effing woman”, and then called her the N-word, screaming it at her. He of course used the full words in those instances, and he screamed that word at her three times.
After her shift, Jennifer went home shaken but resilient about the reality of unpleasant abuse at work. She was then contacted by her hospital trust. You might think it was a welfare check—but no. There was no mention of support after the racist attack. Instead, she was issued with a written warning, and the trust reported her to the Nursing and Midwifery Council to investigate her fitness to practise, because she posed a risk to the public, it was said, and the reputation of the NHS for not using the patient’s preferred gender identity. Only when Jennifer went public and the story hit the media did the trust say it would investigate the racist abuse. But by then, it had suspended Jennifer for telling her story. Then, they moved her to another hospital, demoted her to a lower grade, and she lost pay et cetera.
Now, I would have assumed that this shocking story would be a huge equality-at-work story for the trade union movement to take up: an ethnic minority female, a front-line health worker, a victim of explicit racist harassment and male violence, all over the papers, and then gross discriminatory employer behaviour. But no, not a dicky bird: a deafening silence in the nursing unions and the TUC. Maybe Nurse Jennifer was, as an open evangelical Christian, rather than a trade unionist, the wrong kind of victim.
Recently, we heard that another nurse, Sandie Peggie, a Royal College of Nursing member for 30 years, has been forced to sue her union for its failure to support her or provide legal assistance when she was suspended by NHS Fife. Her crime was that she challenged the presence of Dr Beth Upton, a biological man, in the women-only changing rooms at Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy. That Nurse Peggie’s legal action is necessary should shame the trade union movement. As Mrs Peggie’s solicitor, Margaret Gribbon, explained, her client expected the union to
“exercise its industrial muscle to challenge the decision which was adversely impacting her and other female union members”.
She alleged that she
“spoke to the union about the issue of single-sex spaces in February last year”.
In relation to this amendment, how can we mandate employers to provide generous facility time for trade union equalities work with such a risible attitude to the real-life attacks on equality at work, as evidenced? When Nurse Peggie is forced to take legal action to get justice from her own union, I am not sure I want any more union equality officers. Susan Smith, of the For Women Scotland organisation that brought the successful Supreme Court action, notes:
“We imagine this is likely to be first of many such cases. Sadly, it seems that only financial penalties will persuade the unions to step up, do their job, and represent women in the workplace”.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, which have been tabled in good faith and with good intent, aim to clarify employees’ rights for reasonable time off and to maintain a balance of obligation between employers and employees. However, this tempting repeated emphasis on balance and responsibilities risks adding unnecessary complexities to what should be a straightforward provision. The focus on sustainable assessments closely tied to individual circumstances, while well-intentioned, may create complicated decision-making for both the employer and employees, rather than finding the guidance we are looking for.
I am not a clairvoyant; I am summing up from the notes I have in front of me. The amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, talk about linking facility time for equality representatives with statutory performance targets in the public sector—that is what the time off is for—to introduce additional conditions aimed at ensuring accountability. The proposal for a sectoral cost assessment before these changes take effect offers a measured way of evaluating their impact. It will be important to monitor how these conditions interact with the support available to employees’ representatives to maintain an efficient and effective balance.
I look forward to the Minister’s response to these amendments. I will not comment on the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, tonight. I will leave that for the Minister to deal with.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for their amendments and contributions to today’s debate.
I speak to the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom, where we seek to make the provision of facility time for equality representatives conditional on public sector employers meeting their statutory performance standards. I believe such amendments are not merely sensible but essential if we are to ensure that public resources are allocated responsibly and with accountability.
It is no secret—we hear it constantly—that politicians and civil servants routinely claim that they want to protect taxpayers’ money, yet too often the rhetoric is hollow and budgets expand unchecked. One glaring example is the unchecked proliferation of equality, diversity and inclusion, or EDI, roles in the public sector. For those unfamiliar, EDI is a branch of human resources. There are now some 10,000 EDI officers employed across public sector organisations. There has been a veritable explosion of spending that has occurred with minimal scrutiny or measurable outcomes.
Against this backdrop, it is right and proper to demand that facility time—a significant use of public resources—should be granted only to employers who are delivering on their statutory performance targets. Our amendments would introduce a performance condition that requires the Secretary of State to be satisfied that a public sector organisation is meeting relevant standards before facility time can be allocated.
I believe this to be a vital safeguard that Clause 62 as currently drafted just fails to provide. Clause 62 in its current form risks allowing facility time to be given indiscriminately, without regard for whether the employer is fulfilling its primary obligations to service users and taxpayers. That is a pretty laissez-faire approach, which I believe is unacceptable in an era of tightening budgets and growing demand for public services—no doubt we will hear much more of this from the Chancellor of the Exchequer tomorrow morning. Without this condition, facility time risks becoming yet another unchecked entitlement, further diverting scarce resources away from front-line delivery.
We must be clear, however, that supporting and moving these amendments does not mean opposing equality representatives themselves or the very important functions they perform. Rather, it just means insisting that public funds should be spent prudently, and that facility time should be tied to organisational performance. If a public sector body is failing to meet statutory targets, I believe it is irresponsible to allow additional resource commitments without first addressing those failures. Moreover, our proposed new clause would require a sector-by-sector cost assessment of facility time, introducing much-needed transparency and evidence-based policy-making. Before expanding facility time or making it more widely available, Parliament must understand its real financial impact and weigh it carefully against the public benefits.
We urge all noble Lords to refuse to accept Clause 62 in its current form but to embrace these amendments, and then we will have a crucial performance condition. In that way, we will ensure that facility time is provided responsibly, with accountability, and only when public sector employers are meeting their statutory obligations.
However, I commend my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough on introducing what I felt were very reasonable amendments. Of course, he is drawing on extensive experience serving on council business and the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority, on which he served with such distinction, so I hope the Minister will accept those amendments.
I have to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, that I was appalled by the stories she gave, showing the experience of Nurse Jennifer and Nurse Peggie. They are shocking stories, and how right she was to bring them to the attention of the Committee. There is a great worry that somewhere, deeply embedded in the system, is systemic sexism. I suppose I am looking back—it is far too long ago—to when I was, and I think I probably still am, the only man to have been appointed Minister for Women in the Cabinet. I have to say that the experience I had in that position warned me of the impending problems about which the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, spoke so passionately and so clearly.
We really have to get something right. In many ways, I know that the Bill has been put together with great haste, but Clause 62 in particular at least requires amendment, or perhaps another clause more carefully thought through should be presented to the House on Report. That is why we look forward to hearing from the Minister. We are talking about not just good governance but a necessary step to protect both taxpayers and front-line public services.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for their amendments relating to the provision of facilities to trade union officials and representatives, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, for speaking to them. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for initiating debate on Clause 62, to which I will also speak.
In Amendments 224 to 233, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, he seeks to amend Clause 61 to maintain, as he argues, a reasonable balance of obligations and responsibilities between employers and employees. Like the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, I take the amendments at face value: they are probing and not wrecking, and the noble Lord is trying to understand the appropriate balance. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, that the clause already seeks a reasonable balance of obligations and responsibilities between employers and employee representatives. The paid time off that trade union representatives receive is often insufficient to fulfil all their trade union duties. Many union representatives use significant amounts of their own time to support workplace relations. Indeed, in some sectors, in some companies, in some firms, their trade union activity is carried out very much on a voluntary basis rather than it being about people having full-time release and doing nothing towards the organisation apart from conducting trade union duties.
The Government want to rebalance obligations and responsibilities by ensuring that union workplace representatives are able to take sufficient paid facility time and have sufficient access to facilities to enable them to fulfil their union representative duties. While the clause grants trade union representatives the right to facility time and accommodation and other facilities from their employers, it does so by having regard to a relevant code of practice issued by ACAS. The ACAS guidance will help employers to implement these measures and will be updated in partnership and through consultation with both employers and trade unions. It will therefore help to ensure that a balance of obligations and responsibilities is secured, and ACAS is a very appropriate and worthy organisation to undertake that role.
Greater facility time will lead to improved work representation and better industrial relations by giving trade unions and workplace representatives the freedom to organise, represent and negotiate on behalf of their workers. This will result in more mature industrial relations and increased co-operation between employers and unionised workers, leading to beneficial outcomes for businesses and the economy. This is a framework to promote more co-operation and understanding at work, not more scope for conflict.
Amendments 234 to 236 concerning Clause 62, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, require that a performance condition must be met before facility time for equality representatives is provided by public sector employers. This would make the provision of facility time contingent on the employer already meeting certain performance standards, although the amendment is not specific about what those standards are.
We fully recognise the importance of strong public sector performance and accountability. However, linking facility time for equality representatives to performance conditions is both disproportionate and counterproductive, as it would create a barrier to improvement and creating stronger industrial relations. These amendments would require the Secretary of State to certify that a public sector employer is meeting relevant statutory performance standards before facility time can be granted. Together, they would pose heavy administrative burdens on both employers, who would need to apply and provide evidence, and central government, which would have to assess compliance for every employer.
I hesitate in suggesting this, but in speaking to other amendments on the Bill in Committee, those on the Benches opposite have been very quick to point out the administrative burdens that they assume are being placed on employers across all sectors by various measures in the Bill. The kind of burdens that this amendment would place on the public sector would not be tolerated by them on the private sector. More fundamentally, they would risk delaying facility time precisely for those organisations most in need of support and undermine the very purpose of equality representatives. Furthermore, a Secretary of State-led certification process would create legal uncertainty and potential disputes. It could also harm industrial relations in the public sector.
Finally, I turn to the opposition of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, to Clause 62. This clause inserts new Section 168B into the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and requires that an employer must permit an employee who is
“a member of an independent trade union recognised by the employer, and an equality representative of the trade union, to take time off during the employee’s working hours”
for specified purposes. However, this applies only if
“the trade union has given the employer notice in writing that the employee is an equality representative of the union”,
or will be undergoing or has completed training to become an equality representative. Sufficient training is that which is sufficient for fulfilling the purposes of an equality representative role, having regard to a relevant code of practice issued by ACAS or the Secretary of State.
Clause 62 also requires that the employer must permit the employee to take paid time off during working hours to undergo training relevant to their role as an equality representative and, where requested, provide the employee with accommodation and other facilities to enable them to fulfil their role, having regard to the relevant code of practice issued by ACAS. Should an employer fail to permit the employee to take time off or to provide the employee with facilities as required, the employee may present a complaint to an employment tribunal, at which it will be for the employer to show that the amount of time off that the employee proposed was not reasonable. So far on those grounds, it is as for any other recognised rep status.
Trade unions have long fought for equality: from Grunwick to the Bristol bus boycott, to campaigning on Section 28, to recently standing up for retail workers—mostly female—who have to cope with violence in the workplace, particularly from customers. It is important to recognise, as, it is fair to say, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, did in her remarks, that equality reps have a key role in raising awareness and promoting equal rights for members, as well as in developing collective policies and practices that enable organisations to realise all the benefits of being an equal opportunities employer.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, gave some specific examples. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, in saying that the cases the noble Baroness recounted, of Nurses Jennifer and Peggie, were horrific experiences you would not want to see anyone encounter. However, I am unsure that using that single brush to tar the feathers of the whole equality reps proposal is proportionate. There may be some correlation, but I am not sure that there is causation.
Clause 62 recognises a trade union equality representative as a person appointed or elected in accordance with the trade union rules, in a manner consistent with the Equality Act 2010. I contend that equality reps have a key role to play in raising awareness and promoting equal rights for all members, as well as in developing collective policies and practices that will enable organisations to realise all the benefits of being an equal opportunities employer. It is pure speculation but, had equality reps been in place in local authorities in earlier decades, and had there been more awareness of inequality in women’s pay, those local authorities facing significant equal pay claims today might not be facing them. Who can say?
I am not sure how rhetorical the questions were from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, on the sort of equality. For the purpose of the clause, it is defined in the Equality Act 2010.
Turning to Amendment 237—
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as the Minister asked a direct question, I might as well answer it now. I gave individual examples. I am sorry if the personalised examples made it sound as though they are one-off cases. I was simply trying to bring alive trends, not say, “Nurse Peggie”. There are loads of them, but I only had 10 minutes. They are trends, but I have brought them alive, I hope.
I ask the Minister to reflect on two things. As the Equality Act 2010 defines equality, I used the example that many trade unions are saying that they will refuse to acknowledge the Supreme Court clarification of what equality means under that very Act. They are going to defy it in the name of equality—trans inclusion and so on. How do you square that circle?
Secondly, the Minister read out the points about training. In part, I was challenging whether the Government care what the content of that training is. My argument was that the training being used in the name of equality is divisive and may not be helpful in the workplace, and is in fact likely to turn worker against worker, rather than the reverse. Do the Government consider any of that, or do they just hand it over to the reps?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I will try to address those points now. Of course we care whether reps, when undertaking any role—whether it is health and safety, learning, or workplace negotiation—comply with the law and are trained in a suitable manner. That does not mean we should necessarily be scrutinising every single thing they do, because one would not expect that in the normal way of things.
I certainly did not mean to belittle the examples the noble Baroness gave, and I am sure they are not the only ones. But at the same time, one cannot make the generalisation that this is endemic across all workplaces where there is union representation. I will also speculate —as we are sort of speculating here—that the engagement and involvement of equality reps might prevent the kind of activity the noble Baroness outlined in the case of Nurses Sandie Peggie and Jennifer. That is counterfactual speculation; one cannot say either way, but it is worth positing if we are serious about discussing this.
I should add, without wanting to stray too far from my brief and, indeed, land myself in some kind of legal hot water, that the Government’s expectation is that all organisations will comply with equalities law in every manner while carrying out their duties. Whatever equality law clearly specifies, we expect all organisations, employers and trade unions to follow that.
Baroness Verma (Con)
May I just ask the Minister a very small question? In business, we already comply with the Equality Act. Most businesses do it because it is mandated, but we would do it anyway because it is a good thing to do. Reflecting on the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, my only concern is the cultural sensitivities that may arise from equality reps taking into account, or not taking into account, some communities’ internal machinations regarding how they see certain equality roles.
Lord Katz (Lab)
For what it is worth, my experience of working in businesses is that most employers, large or small, understand the importance to the nuts and bolts of economic growth and productivity of having harmonious workforces and being respectful employers who listen to the needs of their workforces, however they manifest themselves.
Again—a hypothesis. I think I understand what the noble Baroness is getting at. In a workforce that largely comes from a particular BME community, but that has a management not of that community, the presence of an equality rep from the majority community in the workforce who can make representations concerning sensitivities around religious observance, modes of dress, and modes of communication, could be to the good for that workplace in creating a greater understanding between the management and the workforce. One is only speculating here.
Before the noble Baroness stands up again, as I sense she might, I will say that equality reps are a new idea. They already exist in voluntary organisations, but the Government think that it would be good for workplaces to have more of them in place and that they would promote more harmonious and productive workforces. I observe that having health and safety reps has led to better adherence to health and safety laws and regulations, with fewer issues with health and safety misdemeanours, accidents and the like in workplaces. Similarly, union learning reps have been a fantastic innovation in promoting learning and skills in different workplaces. The notion of promoting equality and cultural sensitivities in different workplaces, as the noble Baroness put it, is a noble aim.
Baroness Verma (Con)
I thank the Minister, but I think he is going to tie himself in knots on this one, because there are challenges that will not be rightly represented. To indulge the Minister, maybe I could have an offline conversation with him to explain where I am coming from.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I am very happy with that and I apologise if I have misunderstood the point that the noble Baroness was trying to make. This has been a fascinating debate but, in the interests of time, I want us to make progress and finish.
Amendment 237 was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. The Government resist this amendment, which unnecessarily asks the Government to conduct a sectoral cost assessment of trade union facility time. We strongly dispute the notion that facility time represents a significant cost to employers. We have already conducted an impact assessment that covers the measures in the Bill. This assessment noted that the cost of facility time is not likely to be significant for particular employers. Instead, it could benefit business performance in the form of increased worker training and support greater worker retention through a reduction in dismissals and voluntary exits.
It is worth noting that the estimated percentage of public sector pay bills spent on facility time in the first year of reporting regulations that were enforced in 2017-18 was 0.07%, and that, for the 2023-24 reporting year, the figure was 0.06%. That suggests a minimal impact of facility time in the public sector. Before I turn to Amendment 333, it is worth saying that we expect further savings from the Exchequer resulting from more positive industrial relations, which come about through greater facility time. For instance, we expect enhanced facility time to result in a reduction in the number of disputes going to an employment tribunal. This again makes the point that more harmonious workforces are more productive workforces.
Amendment 333 was also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. Again, the Government strongly dispute the notion that facility time represents a significant cost to employers and we have already conducted an impact assessment covering the measures in the Bill. The amendment is therefore not necessary and would simply delay the implementation of this clause and the benefits that equality representatives would bring.
I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, to withdraw Amendment 224 and I hope that noble Lords agree that Clause 62 has a rightful place in the Bill.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hendy
“Right to take industrial action(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended as follows.(2) After section 219, insert—“219A Right to strikeEvery worker shall have the right to take industrial action, whether or not in breach of any contract, subject to the provisions of this Part.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would establish a clear positive right to strike (and take action short of a strike).
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, it is a bit daunting, at 9.50 pm, to speak to a series of amendments relating to the right to strike. I thank my noble friend the Minister for taking time out of her very busy schedule to discuss these amendments, and amendments on collective bargaining, with me last week. The meeting was very amicable and very constructive, but Members opposite will no doubt be pleased to learn that she yielded not an inch on these amendments. None the less, I think it worth while to advance them.
Amendment 238 is intended to confer a positive right to strike. Striking and other forms of industrial action constituted a criminal offence until 1875 and were subject to civil liability until the Trade Disputes Act 1906. Since then, the law has undergone various evolutions, until the Conservative Governments passed a series of Acts in the 1980s, consolidated in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which severely restricted industrial action.
Subject to those restrictions, the Court of Appeal in Metrobus v Unite in 2009 held:
“In this country, the right to strike has never been much more than a slogan or a legal metaphor. Such a right has not been bestowed by statute. What has happened is that, since the Trade Disputes Act 1906, legislation has provided limited immunities from liability in tort. At times the immunities have been widened, at other times they have been narrowed. Outside the scope of the immunities, the rigour of the common law applies in the form of breach of contract on the part of the strikers and the economic torts as regards the organisers and their union”.
As the Court of Appeal put it in RMT v Serco Ltd in 2011:
“The legislation therefore secures a freedom rather than conferring a right as such”.
Both judgments noted that the European convention and other international laws ratified by the UK protected the right to strike, but that was held to be insufficient to establish such a right in UK law. So there is no positive right to strike in the UK, merely a freedom to take industrial action, protection from what would otherwise be unlawful. My amendment proposes that we should have such a right. In making that case, I do not suggest that such a right should be free of limitations. If this amendment were adopted, the current statutory restrictions on its exercise would remain.
The international treaty obligations by which the UK has elected to be bound support the case for my amendment. The UK ratified ILO Convention 87 on freedom of association and protection of the right to organise on 27 June 1949. The ILO, of course, is a tripartite body representing Governments, employers and workers of virtually every country in the world. Though Convention 87 does not expressly mention the right to strike, since the 1950s the relevant supervisory committees of the ILO have held repeatedly that it does so implicitly. For decades, member states have acknowledged that jurisprudence. For example, the UK Government have argued in the ILO:
“The right to strike, which, although not expressly laid down in Convention No. 87, was implied by the provision there for the right freely to organise activities”.
Independently of Convention 87, the ILO recognises the right to strike. A joint statement issued by the employers’ group, workers’ group and governmental groups in 2015 affirmed that:
“The right to take industrial action by workers and employers in support of their legitimate industrial interests is recognised by the constituents of the International Labour Organisation”.
I turn to other international treaties ratified by the United Kingdom. The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights protect freedom of association and the right to be a union member. In 2017, the UN special rapporteur on freedom of association stated:
“The right to strike is also an intrinsic corollary of the fundamental right of freedom of association. It is crucial for millions of women and men around the world to assert collectively their rights in the workplace, including the right to just and favourable conditions of work, and to work in dignity and without fear of intimidation and persecution”.
Article 8.1(d) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights explicitly requires
“States Parties … to ensure … The right to strike”.
In 2019, the supervisory bodies responsible for the two covenants I have just mentioned—respectively the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Human Rights Committee—issued a joint statement on the basic principles of freedom of association common to both covenants, stating,
“the right to strike is the corollary to the effective exercise of the freedom to form and join trade unions”.
In 1997, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights addressed in relation to the United Kingdom the very issue raised by this amendment, holding that:
“The Committee considers that failure to incorporate the right to strike into domestic law constitutes a breach of article 8 of the Covenant. The Committee considers that the common law approach recognising only the freedom to strike, and the concept that strike action constitutes a fundamental breach of contract justifying dismissal, is not consistent with protection of the right to strike”.
This led the committee to recommend that the right to strike be established in UK legislation because
“the current notion of freedom to strike, which simply recognises the illegality of being submitted to an involuntary servitude, is insufficient to satisfy the requirements of article 8 of the Covenant”.
In 2002, the committee reiterated its concern that
“failure to incorporate the right to strike in domestic law constitutes a breach of article 8 of the Covenant”,
and repeated its recommendation that the right to strike be incorporated in UK legislation. It cannot be acceptable that the UK will not comply with these obligations.
At European level, the European Court of Human Rights has recognised in a succession of cases that the right to strike is implicit in the right to form and join trade unions, protected by Article 11.1 of the convention. The other instrument of the Council of Europe, the European Social Charter 1961, is more specific and provides in Article 6.4 that the contracting parties recognise
“the right of workers and employers to collective action in cases of conflicts, including the right to strike”.
Not only is the right to strike incidental to freedom of association but it is a necessary corollary of the right to bargain collectively. Without power to withdraw their labour collectively, workers have no leverage against the much greater power of employers to set the wages, hours, and terms and conditions under which they labour.
The point was elegantly stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour case in 2015:
“The conclusion that the right to strike is an essential part of a meaningful collective bargaining process in our system of labour relations is supported by history, by jurisprudence, and by Canada’s international obligations … The right to strike is not merely derivative of collective bargaining, it is an indispensable component of that right. It seems to me to be the time to give this conclusion constitutional benediction”.
Finally, in this survey, it is to be noted that the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement 2022 provides in Article 399 that:
“Each Party commits to implementing all the ILO Conventions that the United Kingdom and the Member States have respectively ratified and the different provisions of the European Social Charter that, as members of the Council of Europe, the Member States and the United Kingdom have respectively accepted”.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I am going to speak on this even though it is completely pointless, as I feel quite strongly about it.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I am getting snarky comments from the Tory Front Bench. I object strongly to that.
I am speaking in support of Amendment 238, even though the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, needs no support at all. This would establish
“a clear positive right to strike (and take action short of a strike)”.
As the noble Lord pointed out at the start of his introduction, from the early 1980s onwards, we have had one set of anti-union laws after another, and there are now decades of them. Conservative Governments have introduced anti-union laws, and Labour Governments have mostly kept them. The result has been declining union membership and that the power of working people has been taken away. The UK has gone from being a country where income inequality was not that bad, and was even falling in the 1970s, to one where inequality has been rising sharply ever since. That means more billionaires and more money for the top 1% of earners, while more people exist on low incomes and live their entire lives owning nothing but debt.
Our economy has stopped working in the interests of the majority of people. Working people have less power but businesses and capital have more. That is one reason why in this country millions of pounds now disappear to offshore tax havens. The right of working people to withdraw their labour is a fundamental right, but it has been eroded. This amendment on the right to strike is another little step towards restoring the balance of power in the workplace. Without these little steps, which enable working people to stand up for themselves, this country will continue to get worse for the majority of people who do the real work.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I want briefly to commend the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, for putting this amendment forward. I have a lot of sympathy with it. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has explained some of my reasons for supporting it.
I just wanted to note that it is very tempting when rights are being taken away to want to consolidate them via the law and constitutionally. I felt it myself in relation to civil liberties, which I think are under attack: the right to protest and in particular free speech. I keep wishing there was a First Amendment, because then it would be there and they would not be able to attack it.
However—this a good faith question—when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, justify it in relation to international treaties, ECHR, the Council of Europe and so on, I started to worry that maybe this would become one of those treaties where it would be, “You can’t touch this” and you would end up treating it technocratically, as it were. Rather than it being fighting for the right to strike, it would be fighting for the principle of the right to strike with ordinary workers, rather than simply referring to defending it in the law. So can the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, even though he does not stand a chance of getting it through, reassure me that this is not just an attempt at ring-fencing a right, but then neglecting to fight for it in real life? I commend him and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for raising this, because I really do feel that rights need to be protected under this Government as much as any other, I have to say.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, these amendments, proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Hendy and Lord Woodley, are I think as people have outlined. I have been on the wrong end of that legislation on a number of events—official strikes, unofficial strikes and secondary picketing. As a shop steward you are responsible for taking those actions for a company; there are consequences and I have suffered consequences from that.
It is not that I agree with the rights being taken away, but I think times have changed and unions have moved on now. The right of anybody to remove their labour, if they are pushed to it, should be a universal right, but it should be used very sparingly and in very special circumstances. It is all very well rushing to legislation and quoting the European Court, but we live in the real world and when things happen to people at work and people are treated badly, sometimes we have not got time to go and contact the KC and get case law. We just do the things that we used to do and take that action straight away. Sometimes that resolves the matter fairly quickly, because a reasonable employer will see the action you have taken as a direct result of another manager doing something that was not in agreement. So I get the thrust of this.
I have had notes typed and I have been writing my own notes, but I think the top and bottom for me is the amendment is seeking to restore a trade union’s flexibility in choosing which members to ballot and removing some procedural requirements and obligations to notify employees in advance of ballots. I think that time has gone as well.
Reinstating rights for prison officers, the group currently subject to significant legal limitations, is one I would like to slightly explore. The intent behind these amendments is to strengthen trade union rights and promote collective bargaining. The concern is potentially around impact, industrial relations and public safety, especially with the actions of prison officers. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and to the Government that the way to protect prison officers is not to enshrine the right to strike but to remove the reasons why they would want to strike. That really is about improving the Victorian conditions that we have in 2025 prison systems, where people go into prison and come out worse criminals or nine out of 10 as drug addicts or whatever.
Governments, instead of trying to give extra law for prison officers, should be looking at the root cause. I know there is a prison plan being built and we are trying to get more education into prisons—if you want to speak to the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, he can give you chapter and verse on that, as I have listened to him doing. I hear why it is being done, I understand why it is being done and I know that it is not got a hope in somewhere else of getting through. But I thank the noble Lord for bringing it forward, because sometimes it is good to realise that things that we used to do are perhaps today not even politically correct to do. Human rights and the rights of people who go every day to work, to earn a living and support their family, need airing and need protecting. I know this is a probing amendment, but I thank the noble Lord for bringing it because it is interesting. Now and again it is good to be reminded of how it used to be and how it can be now.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I join the general thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. I thought it was a most interesting introduction and I learned a great deal. I particularly liked the phrase “constitutional benediction”, which I am planning to nick—although not in this context, because I rise to join the Minister and express my clear and firm opposition to the proposed new clause after Clause 64. It seeks to enshrine in statute a so-called positive right to strike even in breach of contract, as opposed—if I follow the noble Lord’s arguments correctly—to the freedom to strike. It strikes me as somewhat semantic in terms of the practical outcome, which I suspect is an argument we will hear again.
Let us be absolutely frank about what the amendment would entail. It would insert into the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 a wholly unprecedented and therefore dangerously broad provision that every worker shall have the right to take industrial action, whether or not it is in breach of any contract. It would not be subject to employer agreement or tethered to lawful procedures but would be an absolute statutory right to break contract terms and withdraw labour.
Industrial action, particularly strike action, is obviously a serious matter, and I think everybody would agree on that. It affects not only the employer but the public, the economy and, critically, the most vulnerable in society, who rely on public services. That is why we believe our existing legal framework strikes a careful balance. It protects the right to strike but does so within clear procedures and obligations: balloting requirements, notice periods and protections against unlawful disruption. This amendment would ride roughshod over all that.
What does it mean to have a right to breach your contract, regardless of process or proportionality? Surely, that is not a right; that is just carte blanche. This provision would displace the carefully constructed framework that governs how industrial action can be taken lawfully and responsibly. It would empower disruption without accountability. The purpose of employment law is not to tilt the playing field in one direction or another but to ensure that fairness, order and mutual obligations between employers and workers are respected. The right to withdraw labour must remain conditional on lawful procedures and not granted in the abstract, regardless of impact or legality.
Moreover, the proposed amendment would likely bring the UK into direct conflict with established contract law and create endless legal uncertainty. If workers are told that they have a statutory right to strike, even in breach of a contract, what does that mean for essential services, public safety, or the ability of schools, hospitals and transport systems to function with any consistency?
I do not think we should be mistaken. This amendment is not some minor clarification; it is a fundamental rewrite of the basis of workplace relations. It would undermine the principle that contracts entered into freely carry obligations and it would sweep away the balance between rights and responsibilities. I also have to ask: once a principle of contract breaking is established, how long before that is used as precedent in other contractual disputes?
Nobody denies that workers must be able to organise, speak up, bargain collectively and act where necessary. That is already protected in the legal framework. This amendment would take a sledgehammer to that balance. It would replace legal clarity, we believe, with legal radicalism, and accountability with absolutism. For those reasons, I urge the Government to reject the amendment.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hendy for tabling Amendment 238, which would establish a broad statutory right to strike. I thank him also for our constructive and amicable meeting a few days ago and for his impressive tour of international conventions this evening. I have to say to him that anything I subsequently say does not mean that I do not take our international obligations seriously. In fact, in this increasingly uncertain world, we have more of an obligation to work collaboratively across countries. I think there is a lot to be gained from countries if we do that, not only on these sorts of issues but obviously on other issues of social justice as well.
I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox and Lady Jones, for adding to this short debate and the noble Lord, Lord Goddard. He raised some of the issues around prisons. I will be addressing those in the next group of amendments, but the point is well made that we certainly have to look after and defend our prison officers and recognise the service that they do for us.
The Government recognise the intention to reinforce protections for industrial action but it is important to emphasise that the right to strike is already protected under UK law, as set out in Sections 219 and 244 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, provided clear conditions are met. Introducing a specific codified right to strike would cut across the uncodified nature of the UK constitution and lead to a far-reaching and undefined statutory right that risks legal uncertainty and conflict with long-established frameworks that carefully balance the rights of unions and employers.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for her support and her economic analysis of the consequences of the absence of the effective right to strike. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. I am not sure I quite understood her question, but I am not trying to ring-fence an artificial, theoretical right. This amendment has purpose. I recognise the realities of the political situation in which we are arguing, but this right, were it to come about, would have practical, real consequences and continue what she described as the fight in real life.
The purpose of these international laws, of course, is to lay down minimum fundamental standards for the entire globe. Although some of them are quite ancient, dating to just after the Second World War, and while I accept that capitalism and the world of work have evolved, the fundamental nature of the entitlement to freedom of association, the right to bargain collectively and the right to strike remains, and it is very important that we keep an eye on these international standards and the modern interpretation of them by the bodies which are charged constitutionally to interpret them.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for what I discerned was his support, in a way, at least for the principle. This is my fault entirely, but I was moving Amendment 238 only. I am afraid that he has the further ordeal of listening to me again for the range of further right to strike amendments, including that in relation to prison officers.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for his thorough response to my arguments. He can use the phrase “constitutional benediction”, but it is better coming from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. I will not take up time dealing with all his arguments; the differences between us are self-evident. I just point out that a positive right to strike exists in virtually every country in Europe, and they do not have a difficulty with issues of breach of contract. Of course, the restrictions on the exercise of the right to strike differ from one country to another, but the positive right exists almost everywhere.
Finally, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her very full response. She says that a positive right to strike would cut across our constitutional arrangements. I just remind her that Section 220 of the 1992 Act provides a positive right to picket; if we can have a positive right to picket, I do not see why we cannot have a positive right to strike. For the avoidance of doubt, I was not suggesting for a moment an absolute and unqualified right to strike. Everywhere in the world that there is a right to strike, it is always subject to limitations, which differ from country to country. The question that these international bodies wrestle with day in, day out is whether the particular limitation is in conformity with whatever the international treaty is.
My noble friend asserts that we are in compliance with international law on this. We have to agree to disagree on that point. I do not believe that to be the case. Of course, I agree with her that this Bill is a great improvement on the law as it is at the moment, but she knows that my view is that it is not quite enough. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hendy
“Right to take industrial action (No. 2)(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended as follows.(2) Omit section 223 (action taken because of dismissal for taking unofficial action).”Member’s explanatory statement
These amendments would remove section 223 of the 1992 Act which renders industrial action unlawful if one of the reasons for the industrial action is that the employer has dismissed one or more workers for taking unofficial industrial action.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, it is now 10.22 pm, so I apologise for assaulting your Lordships’ ears with a series of amendments which also deal with the right to strike. Since time is precious, I have decided to focus on one amendment in particular and let the rest speak for themselves. I had hoped that my noble friend Lord Woodley would speak to his amendment on prison officers, but he is unavoidably not in his place. I will deal with that amendment when I get to it.
I will focus on Amendment 240, which introduces six specific measures aimed at the restoration of statutory protection for secondary action. Again, I do not entertain a great deal of hope for this amendment—I am a realist—but I express my gratitude for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who has added her name to it; for a briefing from the British Medical Association; and for the support of unions, including ASLEF, the BMA, the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union, the Fire Brigades Union, the RMT and the University and College Union.
Solidarity action is an inherent aspect of freedom of association and the right of workers to act for and on behalf of fellow workers, particularly fellow trade unionists. From 1906 to 1982, there was no legal distinction between solidarity action and other industrial action. The Conservative Government then introduced restrictions on certain kinds of secondary action, and in 1990 all statutory protection was withdrawn. The Labour Party strongly objected. In the parliamentary debates on the 1990 Bill, Tony Blair, then shadow Employment Minister, said in the other place:
“The abolition of sympathy action is unreasonable, unjustified and way out of line with anything that happens anywhere else”.
In relation to the proposal that all forms of sympathy and secondary action were to be forbidden, he said:
“That proposition is so manifestly unfair and unreasonable … that it is fatal to any pretence of even-handedness in the Bill”.
Compliance with international law is a duty incumbent on the state. Lord Bingham’s eighth principle of the rule of law is the obligation of the state and Ministers to comply with their international treaty obligations. In this House, last November, the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General said of compliance with international law that:
“We should all be immensely proud of it, and this Government will seek at every turn to comply with our obligations”.—[Official Report, 26/11/24; col. 680.]
He developed the theme in a lecture to the Royal United Service Institute on 29 May this year in which he rejected “cherry picking” among international obligations. He continued,
“The argument … that the UK can breach its international obligations when it is in the national interest to do so, is a radical departure from the UK’s constitutional tradition, which has long been that ministers are under a duty to comply with international law … states can leave the treaties they have signed and agreed on. But the integrity and force of the system requires that once a party, to an agreement, they abide by its rules — they don’t pick and mix”.
It will be recalled that the Labour Party in 2021 adopted a Green Paper, Labour’s New Deal for Working People. It was integrated into Labour’s Plan to Make Work Pay: Delivering a New Deal for Working People. It was explicitly referred to in the election manifesto and in the King’s Speech. The paper said:
“The laws regulating industrial action should ensure that UK law complies in every respect with the international obligations ratified by the UK, including those of the International Labour Organization and the European Social Charter, as reiterated in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement with the European Union”.
The UK has ratified ILO Convention 87, which protects the right to strike. Since 1989, the ILO committee of expert jurists has reviewed the UK’s legislative restrictions on secondary action and held them in violation of ILO Convention 87. The committee held that secondary action should be permitted in three situations. First, where it relates directly to the social and economic interests of the workers involved in either or both of the original dispute and the secondary action, and where the original dispute and the secondary action are not unlawful in themselves. Secondly, in any event, a general prohibition of sympathy strikes could lead to abuse, and workers should be able to take such action, provided the initial strike they are supporting is itself lawful. And thirdly, furthermore, the restriction to disputes only between workers and their own employer
“could make it impossible for unions to take effective action in situations where the ‘real’ employer with whom they were in dispute was able to take refuge behind one or more subsidiary companies who were technically the ‘employer’ of the workers concerned, but who lacked the capacity to take decisions which are capable of satisfactorily resolving the dispute”.
That condemnation in 1989 has been repeated many times in the Committee of Experts’ observations on the United Kingdom, including in 1995, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2007, 2009, 2011 and 2013.
The other ILO committee, the tripartite Committee on Freedom of Association, has also condemned the UK in this regard, holding that:
“a ban on strike action not linked to a collective dispute to which the employee or union is a party is contrary to the principles of freedom of association, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that sympathy strikes, as well as social and economic protest action, are protected under the law”.
In November 2023, that committee reviewed the P&O Ferries scandal, and among other things, held that:
“At the outset, the Committee recalls that a general prohibition of sympathy strikes could lead to abuse and workers should be able to take such action provided the initial strike they are supporting is itself lawful … The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the UK Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that sympathy strikes were protected under the law … The Committee requests the Government to engage with the social partners to overcome challenges regarding the legislative prohibition on sympathy strikes, in conformity with freedom of association”.
The request was ignored.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is getting late—it is more than an hour and a half past my preferred bedtime—so I am going to show incredible restraint: although I have signed five amendments, I will speak to only three. I see that the Chief Whip is scowling at me even before I have started, so obviously I am going to milk it for all it is worth.
As a Green, I see that, with every decade of globalisation, this country has had less industry and more of our public services sold off to foreign owners. I do not understand why that has happened; it does not seem to be good business. The next step, of course, will be freeports, where basic rules and protections just disappear. That is where this country is heading. We need the return of strong trade unions to help turn the tide. Each of these amendments aims to give back the power that organised labour once had.
Amendment 239 would enable workers to act collectively if the employer has dismissed someone for downing tools. That person might have refused to work for all sorts of reasons: they might have been asked to do something dangerous, been asked in an abusive way or been asked to do something beyond their job description.
The Chief Whip is making me laugh now.
There are a lot of good reasons why somebody might walk out, and their colleagues can judge whether they are sensible.
The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, said he only really wanted to talk about Amendment 240. I agree that it is quite important because modern industry and services are broken up into small, interconnected companies and subcontractors, and it is essential that workers are able to bring their grievances to the attention of other workers in closely related workplaces. Employers do not like it because it is working people acting in solidarity with each other. It is one set of workers asking another set of employees to make their own decisions about which side they are on.
The idea of democracy does not stop at the ballot box, not that we would know much about that; it should be in the workplace as well. Last week, I met a trade unionist from Italy. He and his coworkers took over the GKN factory in Florence. They are trying to move as a co-operative working force from making parts for very expensive cars to making eco-bikes and solar panels. It is a fantastic opportunity, and I really hope they are successful.
Amendment 241 is the most crucial of these amendments as it restores the right of workers to take industrial action to be recognised as trade unionists. This is the most basic of rights, and it is shameful that a Labour Government have not put this into the Bill. What is Labour for if it is not about working people? Everything else, apparently.
The decline in trade unions has led to the growth of the gig economy and spurious self-employment. The age of secure employment and regular hours has become a fading dream for far too many. This amendment is another small step towards giving people some power in their workplace. Collective bargaining should be automatic in workplaces if a large enough group of employees want it. With so many employers unwilling to take that step, it is crucial that those employees have the right to strike and demand that recognition from an employer.
I would like a just and fair society. The richest 50 families in the UK hold more wealth than the bottom 33.5 million people. How is that okay? I argue that it is not. Nothing in this country works properly any more because the gap between the richest and the poorest is increasing every single day. Those on a low income are being left behind and those on middle incomes are being fleeced by privatised services. Strong trade unions are one way of helping people find a bit of power and control in their lives—these amendments enable that.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, for bringing this into our debate but, candidly, his Amendment 240 is truly extraordinary. The only success Flying Pickets had was a number one in 1983 with the single “Only You”—and, by the way, that was a copy from the great band Yazoo. The idea that we would go back to flying pickets is just extraordinary.
Some 45 years on, no sensible Labour Peer has put this forward until tonight. I genuinely find it astonishing that we are here still debating the idea that it is democracy for a strike to be called somewhere else all of a sudden and for you to go off somewhere else for a dispute you are not part of.
While I appreciate the erudite speech we have heard tonight, going back to the real substance and principle of this, this is an important Bill. I do not agree with a lot of it, but I find it extraordinary that we are going back in time when this country actually needs to move forward in modern industrial relations. I regret the amendments that have been tabled today.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak against this amendment very briefly. I agree wholly with my noble friend Lady Coffey. I also agree that the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, was very persuasive, compelling, detailed and comprehensive, but completely wrong. It would be a disaster for our country if we were to go back to the era of Saltley coke works, Grunwick, the disaster inflicted on the automotive industry, flying pickets and the closed shop.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. It seems to me that the key purpose behind this group of amendments is seeking to shift the balance of power a little bit more towards working people. I think you would find that many people in the country agree that that balance of power has swung too far against ordinary working people for too long.
I just want to very, very briefly say a word on Amendment 253 and underline the very grave sense of injustice that prison officers feel about the removal of what is a fundamental human right, the right to withdraw your labour, back in 1994. There is a sense that that did not in any way improve the Prison Service; I think many of us would agree that the Prison Service has subsequently faced huge challenges. We know of the huge problems that prison officers face very often, day to day, in their workplace: violence, poor conditions and vermin. I stress the appeal made by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. Given the grave sense of injustice that is felt by people who not only stand up for fellow workers as members of the POA but stand up for a service that we could become proud of as a country, a prison service that also, I hope, does the job of rehabilitating people, we must look to engage with the POA to find a remedy to the real sense of injustice that they feel.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I will quickly follow and agree with my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lord Jackson of Peterborough in their speaking against the amendments in this group. We feel that these amendments collectively represent a dangerous and retrograde step that would just take us back to the industrial chaos of the 1970s.
Such amendments would fundamentally undermine the carefully balanced framework of industrial relations that has served this country well for, now, over 30 years. I suppose the conventions of the House require me to address each amendment in turn, starting with Amendment 239. As the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, described, this would remove Section 223 of the 1992 Act, which currently renders unlawful any industrial action taken in response to dismissals for unofficial action.
When workers engage in unofficial action—that is, action not sanctioned by their trade union and without proper balloting procedures—they are essentially taking the law into their own hands, so employers must retain the right to dismiss workers who breach their contracts in this manner. To permit official industrial action in response to such lawful dismissals would create a vicious circle where lawlessness begets more lawlessness. It would effectively immunise unofficial action from any meaningful consequences, and encourage workers to bypass the proper, democratic procedures that unions themselves have surely fought hard to establish.
Amendment 240 is perhaps the most pernicious of all these proposals. It would restore secondary action, the ability of workers not just to strike against their employer over their conditions, but to support disputes elsewhere. We banned secondary action for compelling reasons. It allows disputes to spread like wildfire across the economy, dragging innocent third parties into conflicts that have nothing to do with their industrial relationships. A dispute between workers and one employer could paralyse entire supply chains, disrupting businesses that have committed no wrong and harming workers who have no stake in the original dispute.
The amendment would also remove the sensible restrictions on picketing, allowing pickets to target any workplace, rather than just their own. This opens the door to flying pickets and the mass intimidation tactics that we witnessed in the darkest days of industrial conflict. When pickets can descend on workplaces with which they have no employment relationship, the result is not legitimate industrial pressure but mob rule. Furthermore, by changing the definition of trade disputes from those “wholly or mainly” relating to employment matters to those merely “connected with” such matters, this amendment would politicise industrial action. Strikes could be called on the flimsiest of pretexts, with only the most tenuous connection to genuine workplace issues. This is a recipe for politically motivated disruption that serves no legitimate industrial relations purpose.
Amendment 241 would restore the right to strike for union recognition. We have established statutory procedures for union recognition that are fair, democratic and effective. These procedures protect workers’ rights to choose whether they wish to be represented by a union, without the coercion that inevitably accompanies strike action. When recognition can be achieved through industrial action, the process becomes tainted by intimidation, rather than informed by genuine worker preference. No worker should ever face the choice between supporting their family and supporting union recognition demands.
Amendment 242 would remove the requirement for unions to provide employers with notice of strike ballots. This seemingly technical change would also have profound practical consequences. Employers need advance notice to make contingency arrangements, to protect vulnerable service users and to engage in meaningful dialogue that might resolve disputes before they escalate. In essential services—our hospitals, schools and transport networks—such notice is crucial for public safety. To remove this requirement would be to abandon the vital principle that industrial action should and must be a last resort rather than a first response.
Amendment 243 would eliminate the requirement for separate workplace ballots, allowing unions to aggregate completely different workplaces and employment relationships into single ballots. This strikes at the heart of democratic participation. Workers in one workplace may face entirely different conditions and concerns from those in another. They should not be bound by the votes of workers with whom they share nothing but a common union membership. Workplace-specific ballots ensure that industrial action has genuine support from those who will participate in it, rather than being imposed by a union hierarchy pursuing its own agenda.
Taken together, these amendments would create a perfect storm of industrial instability. They would restore the legal framework that gave us the winter of discontent, when rubbish piled up in our streets, bodies went unburied and hospital patients were turned away by striking workers. They would empower union leaders to spread disputes across entire industries, to bypass democratic procedures and to hold essential services hostage to political demands. We must not forget the lessons of history. The industrial relations reforms of the 1980s and 1990s did not destroy trade unionism; they civilised it. They required unions to be accountable to their members and responsive to legitimate concerns while preventing the abuse of industrial power.
The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway, would have us believe that they simply want to restore workers’ rights. But rights without responsibilities are merely privileges, and privileges being exercised without regard for their impact on others quickly becomes tyranny. The right to strike is not an absolute right; it is a powerful tool that must be used judiciously and with proper safeguards.
Moreover, these amendments would do nothing to address the real challenges that face working people today. They would not raise a single wage, improve a single workplace or create a single job. Instead, as my noble friends pointed out, they would create uncertainty, discourage investment and ultimately harm the very workers that they purport to be helping. Businesses need stability and predictability to grow and prosper. Industrial relations law that encourages conflict and chaos will drive investment elsewhere, taking jobs and opportunities with it.
I urge this Committee to reject these amendments. They represent not progress but regression, not liberation but license, and not workers’ rights but workers’ wrongs. We must maintain the balanced approach that has served our economy and our society so well. Let us resist the siren call of those who would drag us back to an era of industrial warfare that all of us hoped that we would never see again. The choice before us is clear. We can preserve a system that protects workers’ legitimate rights while maintaining economic stability and social peace, or we can return to those bad old days of secondary picketing, political strikes and industrial anarchy. I think and I hope that I know which path this Committee would choose.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thank my noble friend Lord Hendy for his amendments on the right to strike and for raising the issue of prisoner officers’ right to strike, which was strongly debated in the other place.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has taken such a strident approach to the issues which my noble friends have raised. Although we do not necessarily agree with everything that my noble friend has put forward, I would say equally that we distance ourselves from the tone and attitude that has been presented by the other side this evening.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for her support, her attention to Amendments 239 and 241, and her economic analysis of inequality in the role of trade unions. I thank my noble friend Lady O’Grady for developing that by explaining that the purpose of these amendments is to restore the balance of power somewhat.
I also thank her for dealing with Amendment 253 on prison officers. I feel somewhat guilty that I did not give due time to that subject in my speech. However, I note the additional point that prison officers in Scotland have the right to strike. It seems inexplicable to me that those in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are deprived of it while those in Scotland enjoy it.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for her contribution. She did not deal with the requirements of international law; instead, she put forward a case that we have heard before, which in essence is that of special pleading that the circumstances of the United Kingdom justify non-compliance with international law. I do not think that that argument is capable of success.
The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, rather misunderstands the position of international law and the theory of dualist and monist regimes. The United Kingdom is a dualist regime. That means that the obligation of international law falls not on the citizens, corporations, trade unions or other bodies in the United Kingdom but on the state itself. The obligation to comply with international law is that of the state, not of the citizens within it.
The noble Lord mentioned the European Convention. That is somewhat different, because Parliament has made most of the European Convention part of UK law itself. That is a different thing altogether. I am not arguing that the provisions in international law that I have explained apply directly in the United Kingdom or in UK courts or tribunals. The obligations are on the state to conform to those obligations which it has ratified.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, regards these measures as a dangerous and retrograde step and regards the current regime over the last 40 years or so as being very successful. On the contrary, I am with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, in regarding the legislation of 1980s as having led to powerlessness, poverty, inequality, insecurity of work and insecurity of earnings. I disagree with his analysis, in which he describes the consequences of some mythical fantasy world of his own imagination. I say just this about the 1970s, as we do not have time to go into it: for all its faults, it was the most equal decade in British history for wealth and income. The consequence of the 1980s legislation has been to reduce collective bargaining coverage from over 80% to something like a quarter today, which is the essential cause of inequality and poverty.
Finally, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her attentive and detailed response. Again, we must agree to differ in our conclusions, but I add that we cannot go on being damned year after year by these international supervisory bodies. There has to be some way of resolving Britain’s non-compliance. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Goddard of Stockport
Member's explanatory statement
This probing amendment would reinstate the 50% threshold requirement for industrial action to be voted on by a trade union and seeks to understand whether the Government perceives a risk to the democratic integrity of trade union ballots for industrial action as a result of the provisions to remove the 50% requirement.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, an interesting night has been had by all. More ammunition has been thrown into the laps of these Benches than on any other night of the entire debate. Of course, that is called an unintended consequence—never mind. I rise to speak to the important group of amendments that address the key aspects of the industrial ballot process. I wish to highlight my own probing Amendments 244 and 246, which focus on maintaining a robust democratic mandate for industrial action and ensuring clarity around the ballot’s effective period. I thank the Ministers for making time to meet me last week to understand the rationale behind these probing amendments, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for signing my amendments—she is my new best friend for at least the next 45 minutes.
Amendment 244 is a probing amendment that aims to reinstate the 50% turnout threshold for industrial action ballots, questioning whether removing this requirement could weaken their democratic legitimacy. In the process, that could have significant consequences for workers, employers and the public. It is clear that the ballots genuinely reflect the clear will of the membership. That would seem obvious to me. We have spoken tonight about courts from all over Europe and the world, but there is another court: the court of public opinion. When you hear of people having strike ballots with percentage turnouts in the low 20s or 30s, you really must question the legitimacy of the argument for the ballot if you cannot at least get 50% of the workforce to take part.
Lord Hutton of Furness (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 251A stands in my name. I draw the Committee’s attention to the interests I have disclosed in the register. I chair the operating company that runs London Luton Airport.
Much in the Bill is to be welcomed. It will deal with some of the manifest gaps in our framework of employment law and will strike a better balance of rights in the workplace. I strongly congratulate my noble friends on bringing this Bill forward. My amendment addresses the question of balance. Ministers have repeatedly emphasised the importance of balancing the need for better protections for workers and a simplified, less complex framework for industrial relations law with the legitimate and reasonable concerns of employers about flexibility and the regulatory costs of additional legislation. Being both pro business and pro worker is a laudable aim, but it will depend on this balance being properly struck.
I believe that Clause 71 as drafted does not strike the correct balance as it affects UK airlines because this clause directly, but probably inadvertently, brings into play in any future industrial action involving UK airlines the regulations concerning airline passenger compensation set out in what is known in the industry as UK261, which would impose potentially significant costs on airline operators in any future industrial dispute. This regulation gives passengers a right to compensation if a flight is cancelled fewer than 14 days before departure, unless there are, according to the regulations, extraordinary circumstances. Compensation can be anywhere between £110 and £520 per person, depending on the length of the flight, not the value of the ticket. Unions are required under the current law to give 14 days’ strike notice to any UK airline operator, allowing flights to be cancelled without incurring potentially enormous claims for compensation from passengers.
The regulations and the primary legislation are, in this context, extremely and entirely harmonious. Clause 71 would change the current careful balance and expose airlines to significant claims for compensation as in future if the Bill becomes law only 10 days’ notice of strike action would be required. An important ruling of the European Court of Justice in 2019 made it clear that strikes by an airline’s own staff are not to be considered extraordinary circumstances under UK261, so we have an obvious problem. I cannot believe that Ministers intended this outcome because, put simply, there is no balance here. Uniquely in this sector, the law would discriminate against airline operators.
My amendment proposes a solution to this. UK airline employees should continue to be required to provide 14 days’ notice of strike action. I do not believe that my amendment raises any fundamental issues of principle. Trade unions should, and must, have the freedom to take industrial action, but employers also have the reasonable expectation that the law will remain neutral and will not favour one side over the other. I am afraid that Clause 71 does precisely that as far as the airline sector is concerned. If my solution is not considered acceptable to my noble friend on the Front Bench, I hope that she will be able to tell me how she plans to deal with this situation.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
My Lords, I am embarrassed to keep your Lordships even a few minutes more, but I stand to support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, and my noble friend Lord Jackson in his opposition to Clause 69 standing part, and to introduce my own opposition to Clause 66 standing part. Thus, I go further than the noble Lord Goddard, even though I very much support his words.
Why is Clause 65, in combination with Clause 66, so damaging? The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, was quite right to focus on the democratic legitimacy of the provisions of Clause 65, but there is a further, even more key, set of problems with these clauses. With noble Lords’ permission at this very late hour, for which I apologise, I will give a very brief review of the history.
Let us first look at days lost to strikes in the 1970s. In 1970, 10 million days were lost; in 1972, 24 million days were lost; and in 1979, 30 million days were lost during the winter of discontent. We consequently had the Thatcher reforms, which outlawed secondary action, banned strikes conducted for political reasons, regulated picketing, required secret ballots for strike action, and made trade unions legally accountable for actions taken in their name. This enabled unions to restore control and reduce the number of unofficial strikes, which had been a major source of the growth in strike activity in the 1960s and 1970s. The result, post-Thatcher through to the 2020s, was that, on average, less than half a million days a year were lost to strikes. Industrial peace was a direct consequence of those reforms. There were no more winters of discontent. This was enormously valuable, for example, for the Blair and Brown Governments of the noughties.
Let us note that the Government’s Bill seeks to eliminate very few of those specific Thatcher reforms. The amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, which we have just discussed, made an attempt at that; I am glad to hear the Government sensibly decline his invitation. However, even though the Government apparently see the sense of leaving most of the Thatcher reforms in place, they seem, in Clauses 65 and 66 in particular, to be looking to find other ways to unionise the private sector landscape.
If the Government succeed in that, there will be inevitable consequences for the UK’s economy. Last week, it was observed that unions are currently mostly confined to the public sector in the UK, but nobody asked why that was so. It is obviously because public sector workers have a monopoly of employment, so can enforce their will, and timid Governments seek to placate them so as to be able to appear, at least, to be in charge. What is the impact of this? They are multiple public sector strikes and excessive wage settlements in the public sector, the costs of which are now directly leading the Chancellor to her current dilemma of a runaway deficit, plus underserved public services such as social care and child welfare, and an impending debt crisis.
What will Clauses 65 and 66 collectively do to the union landscape in the UK? Clause 65 removes Section 226(2)(a)(iia) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, meaning that for the ballot to be valid, you no longer have any floor for the percentage of employees voting. Clause 66 alters subsection (2)(a)(iii) so that only a majority of those voting would be required for a strike to go forward. One businessman whom I spoke to just today was utterly startled by this news. He runs an SME employing 36 workers. If, say, one-third of them—12 people—vote, and only six of those 36 employees vote to strike, then you have a strike. It is not hard to find six out of 36 employees to vote for a strike.
However, is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, pointed out, democratic? Will the electorate’s heart warm to this quantitative gerrymandering? As I described just now, we all see the impact of unionisation in the public sector. What will happen in the private sector if this Bill, in the undemocratic manner that the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, has so rightly decried, passes?
I described last week in this Chamber some of the past, when unionisation destroyed industries such as the London docks, and the present, when the public is tormented by public sector strikes ranging from dustbins to doctors and from teachers to train drivers. This present-day public sector malaise, if it spreads to the private sector, will, as my noble friend Lord Hunt made clear, take us straight back to the 1970s and the winter of discontent.
If the Government are, sensibly, really not proposing to change much of the Margaret Thatcher reforms, which have brought industrial peace to the private sector at least, why is there any need to bring in these new anti-democratic changes? Do the Government really think that allowing strikes to go forward, with feasibly only 10% or even less of employees voting for the strike, will be seen by the public and indeed by the other 90% of the employees of that company as anything but outrageous and leading to even more strikes, even more outrageous wage settlements, even more yawning deficits, even, dare I say, a very large and this time real economic black hole?
If the Government proceed with these changes, the inevitable consequent industrial strife will be laid at their door. The Labour Party saw what happened to it in the 1979 election as a result of the winter of discontent. Why is it now seeking a similar fate in 2029? I urge the Government to withdraw Clause 66 and indeed Clause 65.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to the amendments that I have signed. I do not actually wish to add anything on Amendments 244 and 246 as what the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, said was straight to the point. I agree with him absolutely on those matters.
I just want to briefly turn to the Clause 71 stand part notice and Amendment 251A from the noble Lord, Lord Hutton of Furness. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hutton of Furness, explained it very eloquently. Why, when we are getting into this level of legislation, does it really matter about going from 14 days to 10 days? Actually, it does. There are wider consequences of some of these legal changes which need to be recognised in terms of the practicality of some of this legislation. It would be very helpful to hear from the Minister why that particular move is being made.
The other reason I oppose entirely Clause 71 standing part—to be more accurate, it is probably about subsection (1)(b)—is the categories and the NHS and trying to prepare for strikes. You never know exactly how many people will go on strike when you are running a hospital or other parts of the NHS. Having a clear sense of what capability you are still going to be able to run is critical for patient safety and for patients getting better.
I hope that the Government consider the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, when it comes to the airline industry. I hope Ministers will also carefully consider the NHS in their deliberations, because that genuinely can mean the difference between life and death or, to be less dramatic, whether a whole series of operations will need to be cancelled for many patients across the country. I genuinely believe, recognising that health unions are currently issuing ballot papers, that Ministers should be carefully considering what impact this new clause would have.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lord Moynihan, and the noble Lords, Lord Goddard and Lord Hutton. I will come back to their amendments shortly.
I will speak to Amendments 245, 251B and the question of whether Clause 68 should stand part, which is tabled in my name. On the clause stand part, this clause represents a dangerous step backwards. The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, objected to it in the sense that he thought it might introduce a lack of clarity. But the fact is that the clause itself is a step backwards in transparency and democratic accountability that this Committee must not allow to pass unchallenged.
The provisions that Clause 68 seeks to remove, notably subsections (2B) to (2D) of Section 229, are not bureaucratic obstacles but fundamental pillars of informed democratic participation. They require that voting papers should include a summary of the dispute, specify the types of industrial action proposed and indicate when such action is expected to take place. These are not unreasonable burdens. They are the basic information any voter needs to make an informed decision.
Democracy thrives on transparency, not opacity. When we ask working people to vote on whether to take industrial action—a decision that may affect their employment, their families’ livelihoods and their future prospects—surely they are owed the courtesy of clear, comprehensive information about what they might be voting for.
Consider the absurdity of what this clause actually proposes. It is a ballot paper that asks, “Are you prepared to take part in industrial action short of a strike?” without specifying whether this means a work-to-rule, an overtime ban, a refusal to cover additional duties or any combination of actions. How can any reasonable person make an informed choice without knowing what they are agreeing to participate in?
The Government may well argue that these requirements impose administrative burdens on the trade unions, which is an argument we have heard on a couple of groups tonight. But since when did we consider informing voters to be an administrative burden rather than a democratic duty? We would not accept a general election ballot that failed to specify what office candidates were seeking or what their party stood for, so why should we accept industrial action ballots with less information?
Furthermore, these information requirements serve to protect union members themselves. Clear information helps ensure that workers understand not just what they are voting for but the potential consequences of their actions. This protects both their interests and those of their unions by reducing the likelihood of disputes over the course, scope or nature of mandated action.
Turning to Amendment 245, I agree with the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, and the noble Lord, Lord Goddard. I will speak to this amendment, although I must emphasise that my primary concern is not with the amendment itself but the Government’s fundamentally flawed approach to this critical issue. To be absolutely clear, the 50% turnout threshold for industrial action ballots should be maintained. This threshold exists for the very good reason that it ensures that strikes and other industrial actions have genuine democratic legitimacy, as the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, pointed out, and that they represent the will of a substantial portion of union membership and not merely an activist minority.
If the Government are determined to weaken these democratic protections, and regrettably it appears that they are, they must not compound this error by hiding behind secondary legislation. Businesses across this nation deserve better. They need to know the regulatory framework within which they will operate—a theme to which we have returned a number of times through the Bill. They cannot plan for investment, assess risk or make employment decisions when fundamental aspects of industrial relations law are left hanging in regulatory limbo. The Government’s approach creates precisely the uncertainty that undermines economic confidence and job creation.
I urge the Government to reconsider entirely and maintain the 50% threshold to provide the certainty that businesses need and the democratic legitimacy that industrial action requires. If the Government insist that they are going to lower the threshold, which we think will be disastrous, it should be in the Bill, so that we can scrutinise it fully, which is what my amendment would ensure. As my noble friend Lord Moynihan pointed out, a 20% threshold could lead to only 10% of a workforce supporting strike action. The House deserves the opportunity to examine and debate such fundamental changes properly and not have them smuggled through in statutory instruments with minimal parliamentary oversight.
I will speak very briefly to Amendment 251A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hutton. I could not agree with him more. It would be a very regrettable error if the Bill were to inadvertently introduce an unintended consequence of potentially swingeing fines for airlines, for reasons that are not really any fault of their own. It is to be supported, and I hope he will return to the theme.
My Amendment 251B proposes a modest but vital extension, from 10 to 14 days, of the notice period required before industrial action can commence in the railway sector, for slightly different reasons. This is not an attempt to restrict workers’ rights but rather a recognition of the unique role that our railway system plays in the economic and social fabric of the nation. The railway network is not just another industry. As my noble friend Lady Coffey pointed out, it is the circulatory system of the economy and it moves millions of passengers and vast quantities of freight every single day. When railway services are disrupted, the effects cascade through every sector of society, from healthcare workers unable to reach hospitals to students missing examinations and businesses losing millions in productivity. The current 10-day notice period that is proposed is simply insufficient for the complexity of railway operations. I could go on, but I think I have said enough on the subject.
Four additional days may seem modest, but, in the context of the operations of the railway and airlines, it represents the difference between chaos and managed disruption. It allows time for proper contingency planning, for negotiations to continue and for the travelling public to make alternative arrangements. With that, I shall wind up, but I hope the Government are paying attention and will at least listen to these carefully considered amendments.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Goddard of Stockport, and my noble friends Lord Hutton of Furness and Lord Hendy for tabling amendments on the subject of industrial action ballot mandates, thresholds and notice. Despite the late hour, I recognise that there is significant interest here. I will try to do justice to all those amendments and to the opposition to certain clauses standing part of the Bill.
Before I go into the detail, I want to make it clear that a lot of what we are discussing relates to the repeal of the great majority of the Trade Union Act 2016, which was a clear manifesto commitment for this Government. I think it is worth framing why that is the context. This does, in a way, speak to a lot of what the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, mentioned. Far from supporting the economy, the strike legislation in the 2016 Act that we inherited from the then Opposition did not actually prevent strikes. In 2022, we lost more days to strikes than France. In 2023 and 2024, NHS strikes alone cost the taxpayer £1.7 billion.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
The noble Lord and others keep referring to the 2016 Act, but the amendments that we have been addressing in this section are all amendments to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
Lord Katz (Lab)
With respect, there are definitely elements in the group of amendments we are talking about that relate to the 2016 Act. I was simply setting out the context for my remarks. Perhaps the noble Lord will let me make some progress, and, if he is still not satisfied towards the end of the speech, we can spend a bit more time on this.
As I was saying, 2.7 million working days were lost to strike action in 2023, up from 2.5 million in 2022, and these were the highest annual number of working days lost to strikes since 1989. Put frankly, the 2016 Act did not achieve its objective of reducing strikes—in fact, it made things worse.
Amendment 244, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, and Amendment 245, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, both seek, in different ways, to remove the repeal of the 50% industrial action ballot turnout threshold. The Bill as drafted repeals this threshold in its entirety, returning us to the situation pre 2016, where only a simple majority of members voting in favour of strike action was required for industrial action to be deemed lawful.
We want to create a positive and modern framework for trade union legislation that delivers productive, constructive engagement, respects the democratic mandate of unions and reduces bureaucratic hurdles. The date for repeal of the 50% threshold will be set out in regulations at a future date, with the intention that it is aligned with the establishment of e-balloting as an option for trade unions. In combination with the delivery of modern, secure workplace balloting, we hope that this will ensure that industrial action mandates will have demonstrably broad support.
I turn to the opposition to Clause 66 standing part. In answer to the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, this clause does indeed seek to amend Section 226 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act to reverse the change made by Section 3 of the Trade Union Act 2016. Section 226 is amended to omit subsections (2A) to (2F), thereby removing the requirement for industrial action ballots in six defined public services—health; fire services; education for those aged under 17; transport; decommissioning of nuclear installations, management of radioactive waste and spent fuel; and border security—to have the support of at least 40% of those entitled to vote for the industrial action in order to be valid.
Alongside Clause 65, which removes the turnout threshold, a trade union will need only a simple majority of those voting in the ballot to vote in favour of industrial action for the industrial action to be deemed lawful. This was the case prior to the Trade Union Act 2016. This clause is a key part of the Government’s agenda. Again, I want to be clear that this is part of our commitment to repeal the Trade Union Act 2016.
I turn to Amendment 246, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, and will speak to the opposition to Clause 69 standing part of the Bill. The noble Lord’s amendment seeks to retain the current six-month mandate period for industrial action following a successful ballot. The Government want to strike the right balance between ensuring that industrial action is based on a recent vote and reducing the need for re-ballots. Strike action is always a last resort; it is costly to workers as well as employers. For this reason, we consulted on the appropriate length of time before a trade union should re-ballot its members.
In that consultation, trade unions were very keen to have no need to re-ballot for a mandate at all. However, following the consultation, the Government have set the mandate period at 12 months, because the majority of industrial action concludes within that time. This will ensure the appropriate balance between reducing the costs of re-balloting and allowing mandates to continue for longer where they are likely to have continued members’ support, without prolonging disputes or permitting action to be called based on a more than year-old mandate. Retaining the six-month mandate period would prevent the Government delivering on their commitment substantively to repeal the Trade Union Act 2016.
I turn to the opposition to Clause 68 standing part from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. The purpose of this clause is to reduce the information that unions are required to include on a voting paper for industrial action, through repealing Section 5 of the Trade Union Act 2016, which introduced additional requirements into Section 229 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 5 of the 2016 Act required trade unions to include on the ballot paper a summary of the issues that are in dispute between the employer and the trade union; the type of industrial action that amounts to action short of a strike; and an indication of the time period during which it is expected that those specific types of action are to take place.
Repealing Section 5 will not remove all the information requirements. Under Section 229, the ballot paper will still require unions to ask their members on the ballot paper whether they support industrial action and which type of action they want to take part in, expressed in terms of whether it is strike action or action short of a strike. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, made an analogy with ballot papers not containing details such as the names of candidates or the nature of the election. I respectfully point out that there is a danger in that analogy; I do not think it is fair. After all, noble Lords opposite would not expect democratic elections for elected office to carry the kind of mandate threshold that they are insisting trade union ballots should have. Whether they want to make the analogy that democratic elections are like union ballots or not, there is a bit of a pick and mix going on—
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
That is fair enough; I accept the noble Lord’s point when it comes to general elections but, in effect, this is a referendum, which is usually much more clear-cut.
Lord Katz (Lab)
The point remains that there was not a threshold mandate for the few referendums that we have had. I maintain my point that ballots and elections are not really analogous, and there is danger for everyone in trying to compare the two.
The removal of the initial requirements imposed by the 2016 Act will reduce the red tape on trade union activity that works against their core role of negotiation and dispute resolution.
On the opposition to Clause 69, the purpose of the clause is to amend Section 234 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to change the mandate period for industrial action following a successful ballot from six months to 12 months without the possibility of extension, which we have already discussed in Amendment 246. Among other things, the clause brings the appeals process back in line with the position before the Trade Union Act 2016 and many other enforcement bodies of employment law. For example, appeals against the decision of employment tribunals are considered only on points of law, not points of fact.
Amendment 249, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hendy, would require unions to publish results of industrial action ballots on a publicly accessible website, removing the current obligation to notify individual members and employers directly. The Government recognise that the current arrangements can impose a communications burden on trade unions, especially where first-class post is used to provide the notification to members and employers. However, removing the requirement to send direct notification risks reducing the accessibility and certainty of this information to those entitled to receive it. In our view, it undermines transparency and thus confidence in trade unions and the balloting process. Relying solely on a website assumes that members and employers will proactively seek out information, which could lead to disputes over whether that proper notification has occurred. Direct notification ensures clarity and transparency.
To address concerns about the administrative burden associated with these communication standards, the Government intend to update the Code of Practice: Industrial Action Ballots and Notice to Employers to encourage the use of email in place of posts where practicable. This approach preserves the principle of direct communication while reflecting modern methods of engagement and reducing administrative costs. For these reasons, I am afraid the Government do not support this amendment.
Amendment 251, again tabled by my noble friend Lord Hendy, seeks to simplify requirements on trade unions when issuing notices. While the Government understand the desire to streamline procedures, these notice provisions serve a vital purpose in ensuring that employers have the necessary information to plan for and respond to industrial action. The Government are already reducing the minimum notice period for industrial action from 14 days to 10 days, and removing the specific requirements that unions must provide in notice for industrial action, such as to disclose the number of employees in each category. This amendment risks removing too much detail, potentially leaving employers unclear on the nature, scale and timing of the action being proposed. Again, I am afraid, this is why the Government do not support my noble friend’s amendment.
The last amendments in this group are Amendments 251A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hutton of Furness, and Amendment 251B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. The Government do not support either of these amendments because our general position is not to make sectoral carve-outs from the limitations and conditions which apply to industrial action. This is consistent with our repeal of the 40% support threshold for industrial action and ballots in the repeal of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act that set further conditions on industrial action in some public services. The same statutory notice period for industrial action across all sectors ensures a simple rule that is clear for all parties involved and that applies in all circumstances. It is then for employers in each sector to manage their industrial relations and their businesses accordingly. However, my noble friend Lord Hutton has some specific concerns around the airline industry and we are happy to meet to understand these concerns further.
The issue of the Clause 71 standing part of the Bill was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. Alongside our manifesto commitment to repeal the 2016 Act, the Government are committed to bringing in a new era of partnership that fosters meaningful engagement between government, employers and unions, and this is grounded in co-operation and negotiation. We recognise the importance of striking a balance between allowing for effective strike action while also ensuring that employers are able to reasonably prepare for industrial action when, sadly, it has to occur—I should say when workers have voted for it to occur.
Clause 71 makes targeted changes to Section 234A of the 1992 Act to simplify the process by which trade unions provide that notification. Specifically, we are removing one element from the current requirements: the need to specify the number of affected employees in each job category. Employers will continue to receive essential information, including the overall number of employees affected, the categories they belong to, and the workplaces concerned. This strikes a sensible balance between reducing bureaucracy and enabling employers to plan to mitigate the impacts of industrial action.
Clause 71 also reduces the notice period for industrial action from 14 days to 10 and, consequently, Section 8 of the 2016 Act will be repealed. Moving from a 14-day notice period to a 10-day notice period provides a more flexible, workable approach that reflects modern industrial relations practice.
We acknowledge that some groups argued for a return to the previous seven-day notice period, and that others have called for the current 14-day period to be retained. In our view, 10 days represents a balanced compromise. It is the appropriate balance in allowing employers the ability to plan to mitigate the impact of and reduce the disruption and knock-on impacts of strikes, while respecting the right to strike. It reflects consultation feedback, and allows employers time to prepare, while reducing the burden and uncertainty faced by trade unions. Taken together, these reforms simplify the industrial action framework and reduce unnecessary burdens and legal risk for trade unions.
Finally, Clause 72—
Baroness Coffey (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, I particularly focused on the NHS. I was not trying to see it as a sector—I was thinking of the categories and the number by category. I appreciate it is late, so if the Minister wants to write to me, I would be happy to receive that.
Lord Katz (Lab)
For the sake of brevity and time and all of us staying awake, I will undertake to write to the noble Baroness.
Finally, Clause 72 seeks to reverse the effect of Section 10 of the 2016 Act, removing the requirement under Section 220A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for trade unions to appoint a picket supervisor and to meet other administrative burdens in relation to this supervisor, such as taking reasonable steps to provide their name to the police.
As the period of disruption that I have already referred to between 2022 and 2024 has shown, administrative requirements and bureaucratic hurdles only make it more difficult for trade unions to engage in good-faith negotiations with employers. These changes will bring trade union law into the 21st century and fix the foundations for industrial relations that have not delivered for workers, employers or unions.
However, the Government recognise that regulations regarding picket lines are important. To be clear, the Bill is repealing only those measures introduced by the 2016 Act in relation to the role of a picket supervisor. Other legislation and an amended code of practice on picketing will remain in place. Picketing must take place at a lawful location and must be peaceful, and those on picket lines must not intimidate or harass workers who choose to attend work. We are returning the law on picketing to what it was prior to 2016, when it was working well and was understood by all parties.
In summing up, I hope my justification for these clauses and how they meet the Government’s intentions has been clear to noble Lords, and I ask the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, to withdraw Amendment 244.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
I thank the Minister for his reply and thank other speakers who have spoken in this group. The noble Lord, Lord Hutton of Furness, talked about balance, in airlines and other industries. Balance runs through the conversation on this group of amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, is always good value. He throws all these numbers at us and gets very agitated, but he wants the balance to be right between the trade unions and not to swing the wrong way to the other side, and he gave us the history of what happens when that happens. I understand what he is saying and I thank him for his contribution.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, almost used me as a Trojan horse, but I accept that, because her intervention was exactly on pitch. She speaks about clarity, honesty and the NHS. Again, there are many instances in this group that touch all parts of the country, from aviation to the NHS and back again.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, made his position very clear. He wants transparency and responsibility, and he really wants to know where the reasonableness is in the Government’s reluctance to accept these amendments.
Today could be a watershed, because the debates we have been having as Report looms could be where some of these battle lines will be drawn. These are fundamentals. It is fundamentally not right that 50% to call for a ballot is unreasonable. All I am asking is for the Government to take back the comments we have made tonight and, when we return on Report, show some cognisance and understanding that these are not just anti-union amendments. We support the unions, but they have to be seen to be democratic and accountable to the wider public. I hope that they take my comments and criticism in the way they are offered: to help to make a better Bill that is more acceptable to everybody.
I will read the Minister’s comments in Hansard, because he went through at a canter. I was a bit concerned when he talked about balloting being a positive modern experience. I have always found it to be the opposite: it is soul destroying to vote for industrial action.
With the benefit of the doubt, this party will listen and hope that the Minister has taken on board some of our positive criticism tonight before we come back with this set of amendments. These amendments, among all the others, could be the contentious ones, and the Minister has the opportunity to lance that boil early. Getting tonight’s amendments right will go a long way to making this Bill work fundamentally better for employees and employers. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.