Monday 16th June 2025
(2 days, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberEmployment Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 81-IX(Corrected)(b) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Corrected Ninth Marshalled List) - (16 Jun 2025)
Lord Hunt of Wirral
“Workplace intimidation in regard to balloting (1) The Employment Relations Act 2004 is amended as follows.(2) After section 54(12)(c) insert—“(d) measures are in place to prevent workplace intimidation.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to consider whether there are sufficient measures to be in place to prevent workplace intimidation before they make any order to allow balloting to take place by a means other than by posted ballot.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 247, 248 and 250 stand in my name and in the name of several of my noble friends. Amendment 247 requires the Secretary of State to consider whether sufficient measures are in place to prevent workplace intimidation before approving any balloting method other than postal ballot.
I believe the postal ballot has served as a cornerstone and a guarantor of democracy for good reason: it provides privacy, anonymity and time for reflection. Workers receive their ballot papers at home, and can consider the issues away from workplace pressures, mark their ballot in complete privacy and return it without anyone knowing how they have voted. This system has protected workers from intimidation for generations. Alternative balloting methods, while potentially more convenient or faster, create new possibilities for intimidation that simply do not exist with postal ballots. When voting moves into workplace environments and on to devices that can be observed, we fundamentally change the dynamic of how workers participate in crucial decisions about industrial action.
Consider workplace balloting stations. Denied the privacy of home voting, workers might find themselves voting in break rooms, meeting rooms or other workplace locations where colleagues, supervisors, or even union officials can observe who is participating and when they are voting—and potentially seek to influence their decision through presence alone. The queue to vote becomes visible; the time spent considering options becomes observable; and the act of voting transforms a private decision into a semi-public one. Electronic balloting presents its own challenges. They might use personal devices in workplace settings where screens can be observed or where pressure can be applied to vote immediately rather than after proper consideration. The technology that enables quick voting can also enable quick pressure.
Each of these alternative methods, while offering potential benefits in terms of speed and convenience, also creates vulnerabilities that postal ballots simply do not have. The private space of the home; the sealed envelope; anonymous returns—these features of postal balloting provide protections that we must be careful not to lose as we embrace new technologies and methods.
We simply want assurance that, before any alternative balloting method is approved, proper safeguards exist to prevent intimidation scenarios. These might include requirements for private voting spaces, prohibitions on observing voting, secure systems that protect voter anonymity, or cooling-off periods that prevent immediate pressure to vote on the spot. Workers should be able to vote according to their genuine views about proposed industrial action, free from any form of pressure or intimidation, regardless of the source.
The employee who has concerns about strike action, or worries about lost wages, or simply needs time to consider the implications should be able to participate in balloting without feeling rushed or being observed. This protection is particularly important because industrial action ballots directly affect workers’ livelihoods. These are not abstract political decisions. They are choices about whether to risk wages, potentially face disciplinary action, or take steps that could affect their employment. Workers deserve the space and privacy to make these difficult decisions according to their own circumstances and conscience.
Amendment 248 takes a clear and necessary step to protect the fundamental principle of democratic voting by prohibiting balloting taking place in the workplace. This would prevent the Secretary of State making any order that would allow trade union ballots and elections to be held in workplace settings. The workplace is fundamentally incompatible with free and fair democratic voting. When balloting moves into the workplace environment, we create a setting where the very people who have power over workers’ daily lives, career prospects and working conditions, can observe, influence and potentially intimidate voters during the democratic process.
This prohibition recognises a simple truth: the workplace is not a neutral space. It is not a safe space for democratic participation; it is an environment structured by power relationships, hierarchies and dependencies that can compromise the integrity of voting. When workers must cast ballots surrounded by colleagues, supervisors, union officials or managers, the essential privacy that democracy requires is fundamentally undermined.
Consider what workplace balloting means in practice. Workers would be voting in break rooms, where conversations could be overheard; in meeting rooms, where attendance could be monitored; or in common areas, where voting behaviour becomes visible to everyone present. The simple act of participating or not participating in a ballot becomes observable workplace behaviour, rather than a matter of private and democratic choice. The physical presence of authority figures during workplace balloting creates inherent pressure. Union officials can observe who votes enthusiastically and who hesitates. Shop stewards can monitor participation levels and, potentially, identify workers who seem reluctant to engage. Supervisors, even if not directly involved in the balloting process, may become aware of industrial action votes taking place on their premises during work hours.
This pressure operates both explicitly and implicitly. Workers may feel compelled to demonstrate loyalty or enthusiasm through their voting behaviour when that behaviour occurs in workplace settings. The colleague who takes time carefully to consider ballot questions may be seen as insufficiently committed. The voter who votes quickly may be assumed to be following group pressure rather than individual conscience.
Workplace balloting also creates logistical pressures that can compromise democratic participation. Workers may feel rushed to vote during limited break times or lunch periods. They may worry about being seen as taking too long away from their duties. The natural rhythm of workplace life—shift patterns, busy periods and urgent deadlines—can interfere with the thoughtful consideration that democratic voting requires.
Amendment 250 would introduce a crucial requirement for transparency and accountability in industrial action by requiring trade unions to conduct and publish economic impact assessments and family tests before balloting their members on strike action. It would require trade unions to take three essential steps before any ballot for industrial action can take place: publishing an economic impact assessment; publishing a family test on the impact of industrial action; and informing their members that these reports have been published. That would ensure that workers had access to comprehensive information about the broader consequences of proposed industrial action before they cast their votes.
The case for impact assessments is compelling when we regard the real-world consequences of industrial action. For example, in 2023 the RMT union estimated that its industrial action had cost the UK economy £5 billion. The Office for National Statistics reported that during those 16 days of NHS strikes between December 2022 and February 2023 at least 93,000 out-patient appointments, 18,000 elective procedures, 9,500 mental health and learning disability appointments and around 28,000 community service appointments had to be rescheduled because of strike action. That had a significant impact on people who were in urgent need of important support.
The ongoing Birmingham bin strikes provide a stark illustration of how industrial action can affect whole communities. Birmingham City Council declared a major incident after 17,000 tonnes of rubbish were left uncollected on the streets, requiring assistance from not only other local authorities but even Army specialists for logistical support.
The strike has disproportionately affected lower-income and inner-city areas, such as Sparkhill, Balsall Heath, Small Heath, Sparkbrook and Ladywood, where refuse has piled up to a greater degree than in more affluent suburbs. The health implications have been severe: uncollected waste has the potential to create not only nuisance for the community from flies and vermin, but public health risks. The policing costs alone have been substantial, with the costs of policing the Birmingham waste dispute reaching almost £1 million.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment so eloquently moved by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral. There is not much more to add, but I will try. I also put my name to the amendment.
I thought we had gone past the stage where we look back at history and do not learn its lessons on protecting the franchise and the ballot in sensitive elections. There are no more sensitive elections than workplace elections, on which people’s very livelihood, careers, family and income depend.
I take your Lordships’ Committee back to February 1834. Colleagues on the other side of the Chamber will be aware that in 1833 agricultural workers in the village of Tolpuddle in Dorset quite rightly formed a union to fight wage cuts. The following year they were arrested, arraigned, found guilty and transported not because they had administered oaths, which was the official reason for their incarceration, but because they assembled as a group. The point is that they did not have a secret ballot. They had an open meeting to form the union and a strategy for fighting those wage cuts, and they were betrayed by two union members. If you talk to Unite the Union and GMB, there is nothing new under the sun.
That said, the point was they did not have a secret ballot. One reason that the unions have evolved in a positive way over many years—hitherto, until we reached this Bill—is that we have had that workplace democracy, unlike in the bad old days of the 1970s and before, where people were pressured to join a union in the closed shop and sometimes pressured to support industrial action which was uncalled for and damaging both to their own jobs and to the business generally, as we saw, for instance, in 1984 with the miners’ strike. Amendments 247 and 248 tabled by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral are very sensible. I would say: be careful what you wish for, because there is another historical example, although noble Lords on the other side may resile from it. The Jim Crow laws in the southern part of the United States existed for many years post-reconstruction in 1865. That they marginalised, traduced and undermined the right of black people, of African Americans, to vote was, in effect, because they did not have a secret ballot and had to register, and there were many legal impediments to them voting.
We respect the integrity of the secret ballot. We would not dream of asking local councillors, parish councillors, borough councillors, county councillors and certainly not Members of Parliament to seek election on the basis that their electorate would be corralled into voting a certain way and there would not be a secret ballot. That is as it should be and as it has been for modern times, and it is correct. Why are we now going back to a potential era of bullying, harassment and attacking people who may not support the union line? Give people a chance to think, reflect and choose the right way for not just themselves and their families but their union by means of a secret ballot. For those reasons I strongly support my noble friend’s amendment, and I hope the Minister will give it due regard.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I oppose this group of amendments. I have to say that it is with deep regret, because my assessment of them is that they are trying to stir up a spectre of trade union intimidation, which reminds me strongly of the initiative going back in history—not quite as far as the noble Lord, Lord Jackson—to 2014, when the Government commissioned Bruce Carr QC, as he was then, to conduct an investigation of intimidation in workplaces. As it transpired, Mr Carr declined all opportunities to make any recommendations whatever on the basis of the evidence that he received. For the TUC’s part—and I was at the helm at the time—we described it as a party-political stunt and said that, frankly, the then Conservative Party in government should have repaid the taxpayer for the significant cost of conducting that investigation that led to zero—I repeat, zero—recommendations for changes in the law. In fact, Mr Carr went on just a year or two later to oppose the then Conservative Government’s Trade Union Bill as “a threat” to industrial relations and to civil liberties.
That brings me to safe and secure e-balloting. It seems to me that anybody who was a true democrat would be looking to increase opportunities for participation in safe, secure, secret and electronic balloting. Any boost to democracy should be welcome. I have to say that it is disappointing that those who oppose the right for trade unionists to cast their vote safely, securely and secretly by electronic ballot apparently believe that there is no threat of intimidation in respect of political parties. Therefore, it is fine for political parties to use modern methods of balloting; it is not fine for trade unionists. I would ask what view that gives us of the perception of trade unions from the Benches opposite, when, on the contrary, we should be proud of trade unions. We should tackle the causes and not just the symptoms of industrial action. We should be proud of constructive industrial relations in this country, which are vital for productivity and growth.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, Amendments 247, 248 and 250 would introduce further requirements in relation to trade union ballots, particularly concerning the risk of intimidation, the use of workplace locations and the information that unions must provide to members. While the intention to ensure that ballots are conducted fairly without pressure is understandable, I question whether these proposals are justified. They appear to introduce new procedural barriers for trade unions, with little evidence that safeguards are failing. There is a broader concern that measures of this kind may tilt the balance even further against workers attempting to organise and exercise their rights. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out whether these amendments are proportionate and necessary, and how they align with the broader approach to employment and industrial relations.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, for introducing these amendments tabled by his noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I thought that, with the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, we were starting the history lessons a little early today—early in terms of this being the first group and in going back to the 1830s. I bend to no one in enjoying anecdotes about the Tolpuddle Martyrs, so I thank the noble Lord for his contribution, although I am not sure what it added to the debate.
Amendment 247, although well intentioned, is unnecessary. We all share the concerns outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, about interference in balloting around industrial action. We understand that no worker takes a decision about voting for industrial action lightly—whether it is strike action or action short of a strike—and that they understand the consequences, because if action is voted for, they will be the ones who suffer directly by losing pay. We must ensure that when we talk about this, we talk about both sides of the ledger.
The amendment is well intentioned, but it is unnecessary, because Section 230 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 already requires that every person entitled to vote in an industrial action ballot must be allowed to do so without union interference. Furthermore, recognition and de-recognition ballots under Schedule A1 are already subject to provisions prohibiting unfair practices whereby the Central Arbitration Committee can order that a ballot is re-run if an unfair practice claim is found to be well founded. To introduce a new voting method to statutory trade union ballots using Section 54 of the Employment Relations Act 2004, the Government must already consider that the new method would allow the ballot to meet the requirements under Section 54(12). Specifically, the Government must consider that those entitled to vote have an opportunity to do so, that votes are cast in secret and that the risk of any unfairness or malpractice is minimised. Therefore, safeguards are already provided for in Section 54(12)(c) that cover intimidation if it takes place in the workplace or elsewhere. The noble Lord’s amendment is therefore not required.
I thank my noble friend Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway for reminding us of the outcome of the inquiry by Bruce Carr QC, as he was then, about the absence of intimidation within workplaces. It is important that we bear this in mind. The question was asked. It was tested by independent opinion and the proposition that underlies the spirit of these amendments was found to be wanting.
Amendment 248, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, would prevent the Secretary of State using the power in Section 54 to allow workplace balloting as a new means of voting in trade union ballots and elections. Unfortunately, the amendment fails to take into account the fact that workplace balloting is already an option for statutory trade union recognition and derecognition ballots. The existing legislation permits workplace ballots conducted by independent scrutineers appointed by the CAC. One wonders why this is deemed acceptable by the Front Bench opposite but other sorts of workplace balloting are not.
Furthermore, as I said earlier, any new voting methods introduced under Section 54 of the Employment Relations Act 2004 must enable a ballot to meet the requirements of Section 54(12). The Government are committed to updating our industrial relations framework and aligning it with modern working practices and technology. This includes allowing for modern and secure balloting for statutory trade union ballots.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough. I had not thought, when preparing my address, to look back to 1834. The only time I ever talk about 1834 is recalling that on 16 October 1834, this whole place burned down and gave rise to the new mother of parliaments we know today. Only Westminster Hall survived that terrible fire in 1834.
All I will say about the Tolpuddle Martyrs who were sentenced to be sent to Australia is that two years later they were pardoned, and they all went to Canada; I think Canada benefited hugely from that exodus. But I am not quite sure that we can read across because so much has changed, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway, reminded us.
The noble Baroness also referred us back to the coalition—it was not a Conservative Government but a coalition in 2014—and cited Bruce Carr KC, who I respect hugely. He is a brilliant advocate in this whole field of employment law, but I am not quite sure that I read across in the way the noble Baroness did.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that it is all a question of balance. We have to try to do our best to get the balance right but, as we draw the debate on these amendments to a close, I want to say how sorry I am that the Government declined to accept these modest but essential amendments, although I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Katz, for saying that they are well intentioned. Of course they are, because they are rooted not in ideology but in common sense, democratic principle and a genuine concern for those people who will be affected most by this legislation.
Throughout this short debate, we have tried to put across the case that industrial action is not just a technical but a deeply human process. It involves individuals making weighty decisions that affect their income, their job security, their families and the wider community. That is why the processes we set in place to govern these decisions must be fair, private and informed.
We argue in these amendments that workers deserve to vote on industrial action in conditions that are free from coercion or surveillance. We said that the workplace, structured as it is by hierarchies and power dynamics, is not and cannot be a neutral environment for democratic expression. I do not need to go back to the 1970s but, of course, that is when I entered Parliament for the first time, and we saw a lot of decisions made in the workplace that people regretted afterwards.
I ask the Government to consider the very real risk of intimidation, whether explicit or subtle, and to preserve the privacy that postal balloting has long guaranteed. We were not asking the Government to turn the clock back on technological progress; we were just saying that any movement away from the postal ballot has to be accompanied by genuine, enforceable safeguards. Yet, sadly, the Minister refused to accept even the simple premise that the method of voting matters—that how a person votes is as important as the person for whom they are voting.
We also asked for transparency. Through Amendment 250, we sought to ensure that unions undertaking industrial action do so with an honest reckoning of the broader consequences—economic, social and familial. We know that strikes do not happen in a vacuum; they ripple outward, touching the lives of patients, parents, commuters, businesses and whole communities. I certainly do not want to prohibit strikes, but we believe that workers have to be given the full picture before they make a serious decision to withdraw their labour.
I am particularly disappointed because these amendments would strengthen the public’s confidence in this legislation. They would have shown that Parliament is serious about protecting not only workers’ rights but democratic process, public welfare and social responsibility. Instead, the message is now that efficiency is more important than privacy, that speed matters more than integrity, and that the consequences of industrial action—no matter how far reaching—need to be honestly appraised before the strike begins.
All I will say in conclusion is that the debate does not end here. I do not believe that these concerns will go away. The consequences of inaction, the risks of intimidation, the lack of transparency and the damage to public trust will, in time, make themselves known. When they do, I hope the House will remember the case that we have made today. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“(2A) Subsection (1) only applies where the protected industrial action is the result of a properly conducted ballot in accordance with sections 226 to 232.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that subsection (1) only applies where protected industrial action follows a properly conducted ballot under sections 226–232.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group seek to address gaps in our current legislation by establishing clear exemptions from detriment protections when workers engage in unacceptable conduct during industrial disputes, while creating a comprehensive framework that restores balance to industrial relations.
I am willing to be corrected, but we do not believe that these specific protections against certain leverage activities currently exist in legislation, which is precisely why Amendment 252 is necessary. However, this forms part of a broader package addressing systemic failures in our industrial relations framework. In our assessment, leverage may manifest in various forms, but at its core lies a deliberate strategy to publicly intimidate and humiliate employers, compelling them to make concessions in industrial disputes that they would not otherwise consider. We fundamentally reject this approach as unacceptable in civilised industrial relations.
When describing leverage in the context of the Grangemouth dispute, Unite the Union explicitly stated:
“Leverage targets all areas of weakness of an employer … Leverage is the translation of an organising mind-set into the planning and implementation of a campaign strategy, underpinned by the escalation of pressure to create uncertainty”.
Even more concerning, Unite the Union expressed the view that in a leverage campaign
“the employer is routinely treated as a target to be defeated not a friend to be convinced”.
This adversarial approach treats employers as enemies to be vanquished, rather than as partners in resolving legitimate grievances.
Amendment 252 specifically identifies actions that constitute leverage: intimidation at picket lines; protests at company premises or the private homes of senior managers; the harassment of non-striking workers; and deliberate actions designed to undermine business continuity planning. Workers who engage in these intimidatory tactics should face the prospect of dismissal without recourse to employment protection.
However, the problems extend beyond leverage tactics. Amendment 251C responds to the troubling rise of wildcat strikes and unofficial action lacking democratic mandates. The Grangemouth dispute exemplifies this. Leverage tactics were employed in pursuit of objectives that may not have commanded genuine workplace support. If workers are to enjoy enhanced protections, those protections should be reserved for action properly sanctioned through domestic process under Sections 226 to 232 of current legislation.
Amendment 251G seeks to address the growing problem of co-ordinated action by workers outside of established collective bargaining frameworks. We have seen increasing instances of social media-organised workplace action that deliberately circumvents union structures and creates chaos for employers facing industrial action without recognised representatives to negotiate with.
Amendment 251D seeks to address the very real risk that, without proper definition, every minor management decision during a dispute could become grounds for a detriment claim. We have seen in other jurisdictions how broad definitions create litigation cultures, where employers face constant threat of claims for routine operational decisions. This amendment would prevent the trivialisation of genuine grievances while protecting employers from vexatious claims.
Our compensation framework amendments respond to documented failures. Amendment 251K would establish three bands of detriment severity—minor, serious and extreme—addressing the current lack of guidance that leads to wildly inconsistent awards. Amendment 251L would require proof of “actual financial loss”, preventing the speculative claims that proliferate without such requirements. Amendment 251N would restrict compensation to economic losses, preventing the concerning trend towards “injury to feelings” awards that represent a fundamental category error in industrial relations contexts.
Amendments 251E and 251F seek to address the stark reality that industrial action has already compromised public safety. During recent NHS strikes, emergency cover was inadequate, putting patients at risk. The 2019 London Underground strikes left commuters stranded, creating security vulnerabilities. Amendment 251E would provide essential legal clarity for employers who must prioritise continuity of critical operations. Without this protection, fear of litigation prevents necessary operational decisions. Amendment 251F recognises that some industrial action poses direct threats to public health and safety. Such considerations must take precedent over detriment protections.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 251C through to Amendment 252, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. These amendments would introduce a wide range of limitations to the new right not to suffer detriment for participating in protected industrial action. The amendments seek to define and restrict the scope of protection, introducing exclusions based on business continuity, public safety, union membership status and compliance with employer instructions. They propose new requirements around compensation, such as proof of financial loss, statutory severity bans and caps on awards.
Although I understand the desire to ensure clarity and prevent misuse of these protections, I am concerned that, taken together, these amendments risk hollowing out the underlying right. They would place significant hurdles in the way of workers seeking redress and could undermine confidence in the fairness and accessibility of the system. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether the Government support this overall direction of travel and how they intend to ensure that the core principle of protection from unfair treatment during lawful industrial action is preserved in practice.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her contribution, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for tabling these amendments. I ask noble Lords to bear with me as I respond to each of them.
I want to be clear about why this clause is required. Clause 73 inserts new Sections 236A to 236D into the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. New Section 236A is required because the Supreme Court ruled in April 2024 that Section 146 of the 1992 Act is incompatible with Article 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights.
Amendments 251C, 251F, 251H and 251J are unnecessary as their purpose is already covered in existing legislation. In the case of Amendment 251C, Clause 73 already requires a ballot compliant with Section 226, as specified in Section 219(4) of the 1992 Act, and makes it clear that protection is limited to cases where the action is compliant. Furthermore, in the case of Amendment 251J, secondary action is already prohibited under Section 224 of the 1992 Act, and the new protection of Section 236A will not apply where the industrial action was unlawful secondary action.
With regard to Amendments 251F and 251H, Section 240 of the 1992 Act allows for criminal prosecution of those who intentionally and maliciously endanger life or cause serious injury to a person by going on strike. Furthermore, if an act of an employer is motivated primarily by health and safety concerns, not for the sole or main purpose of preventing or deterring the employee from taking protected industrial action or penalising them, they have a defence from detriment claims, and the tribunals will consider whether the employer’s act or failure to act constitutes detriment.
Amendments 251D and 252 seek to prejudge a full and open consultation on this issue by setting out circumstances in which the detriment protection will not apply. We will prescribe detriments in secondary legislation only once we have conducted a comprehensive consultation seeking views across the public, including those of workers, employers, trade unions and all other stakeholders.
With reference to Amendment 252, that protection from prescribed detriment applies only where the sole or main purpose of subjecting the worker to detriment is to prevent, deter or penalise the worker from taking protected industrial action; for example, if a worker is subjected to detriment solely or mainly because they have harassed or bullied non-striking workers, the protection will not apply. I can be clear that criminal law will continue to apply to pickets.
Amendment 251E would be an unnecessary limitation on the protections from detriment. The prohibitions that new Section 236A places on an employer are clear: the sole or main purpose of the action must be to deter or penalise industrial action, which would not apply in the case of genuine maintenance of critical operations. Amendment 251G would be an unreasonable restriction to apply to detriment protections. Non-union members have the right to participate in official protected industrial action and, where that is the case, must be afforded the same protections from detriment as union members.
Amendments 251L and 251N would place a burden on individuals to prove that they had suffered financial or economic loss as a result of detriment, and would limit the circumstances where they were eligible for compensation. These hurdles and limits would potentially deter them from engaging in industrial action, limiting compliance with the Supreme Court ruling and Article 11.
Amendments 251M and 251P seek to restrict compensation with regard to business deeds. I want to be clear that an employer’s action or failure to act in relation to prescribed detriments will be a legal obligation that cannot be breached proportionately, and there is no legitimate business interest defence for seeking to deter or penalise an employee for taking protected industrial action.
Amendment 251K seeks to establish bands of detriment severity of “minor”, “serious” and “extreme”, and would require the Secretary of State to specify maximum compensation limits for each, which tribunals would have to comply with. New Section 236D is already clear that employment tribunals must have regard to any loss sustained by a claimant that is attributable to the actions of, or failures to take action by, an employer. Therefore, tribunals will award compensation based on what the tribunal considers to be just and equitable and will be able to proportionately determine the amount of compensation, taking into account all the relevant circumstances. I hope I have reassured the noble Lord. I therefore ask him to withdraw Amendment 251C.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am very grateful to the Minister for his very comprehensive answer, and also to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for her comments. I will have to read Hansard very carefully, because there is quite a lot of detail in the Minister’s answer, but I will say that for months we have listened to Ministers speak at considerable length about the urgent need to address bad actors in our workplaces. On a number of occasions, they have painted fairly vivid pictures of unscrupulous employers who exploit workers, flout employment law and engage in practices that undermine good industrial relations. However, having been presented with clear evidence of equally concerning bad actors within the trade union movement, the Government’s response has been, in effect, to stay silent. I repeated those Unite comments, and I will repeat them again here, that
“the employer is routinely treated as a target to be defeated not a friend to be convinced”.
To use a word that came up in the last group, that is not “constructive” or collaborative; that is very hostile in intent.
Without going into enormous detail, Amendment 251L, for example, would require proof of actual financial loss, which is a basic principle that would prevent speculative claims. I do not see how that would deter anyone with a legitimate claim from engaging in industrial relations, so how would their Article 11 rights be infringed, as I believe the Minister outlined?
We will have to come back to these amendments because, as I say, there was a good deal of detail in there. Once again, the Minister is relying on the mythical consultation; I would like to know when that consultation on these aspects of these amendments will take place. Of course, that also calls into question when he expects all this to be implemented—a subject to which I am quite sure we will return on a number of occasions this evening. But for now, I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Prentis of Leeds
“Amendments to law on unlawful inducements(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (3) below(2) In section 145A (inducements relating to union membership or activities)—(a) after subsection (1), insert—“(1A) A worker has the right not to be excluded or omitted from an offer made by the employer to any of its workers if the exclusion or omission was on the ground that the worker—(a) ?save-line2?was, or proposed to become, a member of an independent trade union;?save-line2?(b) had taken part, or proposed to take part, in the activities of an independent trade union at an appropriate time;(c) had made use, or proposed to make use, of trade union services at an appropriate time;(d) had failed to accept an offer made in contravention of this section or section 145B;(e)?save-line2? was not a member of any trade union, or of a particular trade union, or of one of a number of particular trade unions, or had refused, or proposed to refuse, to become or remain a member.”(b) in subsection (2), for “subsection (1)” substitute “subsections (1) and (1A)”;(c) in subsection (4), for “subsections (1) and (2)”, substitute “subsections (1), (1A) and (2)”;(d) in subsection (5), after “has made him an offer” insert “or has excluded him or omitted him from an offer”.(3) In section 145D (consideration of complaint)—(a) in subsection (1) after “145A”, insert “or relating to an infringement of section 145A(1A)”;(b) after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) On a complaint under section 145A relating to an infringement of subsection 145A(1A) it shall be for the employer to show the ground on which the worker was omitted or excluded from the offer.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that workers are protected if they are excluded or omitted from an offer because they are trade union members. The provision aims to ensure that section 145A applies to conduct which undermines the employees’ rights to freedom of association.
Lord Prentis of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 253A concerns inducements relating to union membership or activities. This is a simple amendment to clarify Section 145 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The reason for this amendment rests in the dispute between Livv Housing Group, a housing association based in Liverpool, and its staff, represented by UNISON and Unite.
In 2011, the pay of Livv Housing workers had fallen by over 30% in real terms. But Livv Housing was not a failing company: it had recorded annual surpluses in the last five years ranging from £14 million to £25 million, with reserves of over £110 million. In the autumn of last year, talks on a long-overdue equal pay agreement and an annual pay rise had broken down. Union members voted to take lawful industrial action. Livv Housing did not engage. It did not look to the underlying causes of the dispute. Instead of seeking a fair deal, it decided that it had found a loophole in the 1992 Act which it would exploit.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Prentis of Leeds, for describing this amendment to us. It is simple and easy to understand but founded on a very difficult and testing industrial dispute. Looking back over my time as a parliamentarian, I often found that facts get distorted, beliefs underpinned and positions entrenched. The last thing that should ever happen is an overt change in the law. I do not believe that is necessary. Let me explain why.
The Minister should not support this amendment, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Prentis, explained, seeks to extend Section 145A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to cover the exclusion or omission of a worker from an offer on grounds related to trade union membership or activity. While the noble Lord presented this amendment as a measure to strengthen workers’ rights and reinforce freedom of association, in reality, on reflection, as he virtually admitted when he introduced it, it is poorly drafted, conceptually flawed, legally confusing and potentially deeply damaging to the legitimate and practical functioning of workplace relations.
At its core, the amendment misunderstands the balance that needs to be struck between protecting the rights of trade union members and preserving the autonomy of employers to make operational decisions in good faith. The current law already provides robust protections against unlawful inducements that seek to undermine collective bargaining. I recall, because I was in government at the time, that Sections 145A and 145B were carefully crafted to target deliberate attempts by employers to bypass or undermine collective agreements. This amendment goes significantly beyond that, seeking to introduce for the first time in statute a wholly ambiguous and legally unstable concept—exclusion from an offer—without providing any meaningful guidance or definition as to what such exclusion means, how it is to be assessed and in what contexts it is to be deemed unlawful.
An offer, by its very nature, is made on the basis of specific criteria—sometimes economic, sometimes strategic and sometimes tied to an individual’s performance or to business need. To say that a worker has a right not to be omitted from any offer and to link any such omission to trade union membership or activity would place an intolerable burden on employers. It would open the door to speculative claims and second-guessing of decisions that may have been made for entirely legitimate and neutral reasons, relying on an inference of motive in the absence of solid evidence. Effectively, it demands that employers should treat all workers identically in every instance of any offer—whether it is financial, procedural or preferential—or face litigation and the reversal of the burden of proof. Let me explain.
The amendment proposes that in any case brought under the new Section 145A(1A), it will fall to the employer to demonstrate the grounds upon which the worker was excluded. That is a fundamental reversal of the ordinary legal principle that a claimant must prove their case. It turns routine management discretion into presumed unlawful conduct unless proven otherwise. Such a reversal may be appropriate in narrow cases where discrimination is clearly alleged and supported by a pattern of conduct, but to write it into statute so broadly and in such general terms is not only disproportionate, it is potentially destructive to employer-employee trust and clarity. No employer, however well intentioned, will be able to manage negotiations or individual agreements with confidence under such a regime.
Furthermore, the amendment also risks creating legal confusion by overlapping with other provisions already in place to protect against victimisation or unfair treatment. Section 146 already protects against detriment related to trade union activities. Section 145A already prohibits inducements that would bypass collective bargaining. If the goal is to ensure fair treatment of trade union members, the proper route is through targeted enforcement of those provisions, not through the introduction of vague and speculative new rights that overlap and conflict with existing law.
The amendment is also unbalanced in its approach. It fails to consider that there are many reasons why an individual might not be included in an offer that are entirely unconnected to trade union status. It might be on account of their role, their location, the timing of their employment or performance-based factors. Yet under the proposed amendment, a worker could simply allege that their omission was because of trade union membership or activity, and the burden would shift entirely to the employer to justify its actions. That is not just an invitation to abuse; it is a structural distortion of fairness in employment law.
It must also be acknowledged that this amendment could have chilling effects on legitimate collective bargaining. Employers may feel compelled to make across-the-board offers rather than engaging in more flexible, targeted negotiations that take into account differences in role, responsibility or need. That could undermine not only business efficiency but also the ability of unions themselves to secure advantageous outcomes for specific groups of members. The very act of negotiating special terms for one group might now trigger complaints from others, citing this amendment as grounds for a claim of exclusion.
In conclusion, let me be absolutely clear: freedom of association is a vital right and must be protected. I do not believe, however, it would be served by new laws that are unclear, that burden employers without cause or that generate more confusion than clarity. This amendment—despite its rhetorical appeal to equality and fairness—will in practice be a blunt and imprecise instrument, increasing litigation, reducing operational flexibility and contributing little, if anything, to the genuine promotion of union rights. I hope the Minister will agree with that.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his lengthy contribution. All he had to say was, “I do not support the amendment”. I thank and appreciate my noble friend Lord Prentis of Leeds for tabling Amendment 253A, which sets out that workers have a right not to be omitted from an offer by their employer because, among other reasons, they are trade union members. This amendment has been laid in response to a particular matter regarding the housing association Livv Housing Group, which last year reportedly made a pay offer to only those members of its workforce who confirmed that they were not trade union members. I am pleased that this matter has now been positively resolved in the workplace, as set out by noble friend.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
Do I take it the noble Lord wishes to withdraw the amendment without further contribution?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“(4) The Secretary of State must conduct a review to assess the impact on emergency services arising from the repeal of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023.”
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments tabled after Clause 75, which would require the Secretary of State to assess the impact of repealing the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 in terms of emergency service provision and the broader resilience of our public infrastructure during industrial action. These are pragmatic and proportionate amendments, and I regret that they are even necessary, but the manner in which Clause 75 proposes to repeal this legislation—abruptly and with no review, consultation or supporting evidence—leaves us no choice.
The 2023 Act was narrowly drawn. It applied only to a tightly defined set of sectors—ambulance services, fire and rescue, health, transport, nuclear decommissioning and border security—in which a complete withdrawal of labour poses serious and obvious risks to life, safety, national security or national functioning. It did not ban strikes or criminalise union membership. It allowed a minimum service level to be set, by regulation, after consultation with affected sectors. In other words, it was a public protection measure, a mechanism of last resort, and it mirrored provisions already in countries across Europe and beyond.
The Government now seek to repeal the law, seemingly on the basis that it achieved nothing. They will no doubt point to the fact that industrial action has continued since the Act came into force. Indeed, we know from statistics that 160,000 working days were lost to strike action in the first quarter of 2025 alone. However, that statistic proves nothing about the value, or otherwise, of the Act. It proves only that the right to strike continues to be exercised, as it should be.
The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act was never intended to eliminate strike action, and its success should not be judged by whether workers stopped striking. It should be judged by whether the public was kept safe when strikes did happen, whether ambulances still reached heart attack victims, basic fire cover was maintained and border infrastructure functioned at a minimum level.
That is a relevant test, and the Government have produced no evidence to show that those minimum protections were either unnecessary or ineffective. In fact, if the Act truly achieved nothing, why the rush to repeal it? Governments do not normally spend valuable legislative time repealing laws that they believe have no impact. The truth is that this law has teeth: it provides leverage, and it establishes a legal baseline. The Government want to remove it not because it is useless but because it places limits on how far certain interests can allow disruption to stretch.
Even if one believes the Act was flawed, the responsible course would be to review its effects before repealing it, particularly when the law was so recent and implementation across sectors was still under way. Consultations on minimum staffing levels had not been concluded in all sectors, practical guidelines had only begun to take shape and the real-world application of the law was still emerging, so to repeal it now is to abandon public protection in the name of political symbolism, to uproot a tree before it even had time to settle and declare it a failure for not bearing fruit.
What is most striking, however, is that the Government have provided no evidence that repealing the Act will lead to improved industrial relations, despite making that very claim in the impact assessment for this Bill. It is asserted almost in passing that the removal of the Act will restore trust or reduce tensions in negotiations, but where is the proof of that? Where is the analysis? Where is the independent data or stakeholder feedback to support that optimism?
We are told to take it on faith that repealing a legal framework designed to protect the public will somehow produce a more harmonious climate between unions and employers. But we are not here to govern by faith—we are here to scrutinise and to ask hard questions, and to legislate with due diligence. I put this to the Minister directly: can the Government point to any serious evidence, whether from unions, employers, emergency service leadership or international examples, that repealing this Act will improve negotiation outcomes, reduce disruption or lead to faster resolution of disputes? If not, why are we legislating in the dark?
What is the Government’s alternative? If we strip away the only existing mechanism for maintaining safe service levels during strikes, what replaces it? Nothing in the Bill offers an equivalent safeguard. There is no provision for voluntary cover agreements, no incentives for minimum staffing, no rapid arbitration scheme and no contingency powers for life and limb services. We must assume that the Government are content to simply let key public services fall to zero capacity during industrial disputes. There will be no legal recourse, no duty to plan and no obligation to protect the public. That is not reform.
Meanwhile, the public, who continue to support the right to strike in principle, also expect a functioning state. They expect to be able to call an ambulance and get one; they expect transport to limp along during industrial disputes, not collapse entirely; and they expect public safety to be preserved. The amendments before us are not extreme; they merely require a clear-sighted review of the implications of this repeal, something that any responsible Government would do as a matter of course.
I urge noble Lords to support these amendments. If the Government are confident that repealing the Act would strengthen industrial relations and carry no risk to public welfare, they should have no objection to reviewing that impact and reporting to Parliament. If they are not confident, I submit that the repeal should not proceed at all.
In short, the issue here is not ideology; it is competence. We are about to discard the only statutory mechanism for ensuring minimum service level provision during strikes—a model recognised across Europe and endorsed by ILO principles—without evidence, without a plan and without a single word of accountability to Parliament. As I said earlier, that is not governance; it is recklessness. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to each of the three amendments in this group, starting with Amendment 254. A significant part of the reason for the minimum services, as my noble friend has just laid out, was to recognise that certain issues were affecting daily life.
It is worth while considering the timing of aspects of this, not long after the end of the Covid lockdowns, and recognising the economic challenges that our country faced. In combination with people’s need to access urgent medical support, bearing in mind that a number of activities had been cancelled many times already, the impact of seeing further strikes—cancelling a basic level of operation for patients—was starting to become potentially very difficult for the country to manage and for patients in getting better.
Other sectors were also discussed, and transport is a good example. I expect that none of the train operating companies used this, partly because many of them found different ways to keep trains running on a basic level—good examples of that would be Greater Anglia or South Western Railway. Greater Anglia will soon become a nationalised rail operator, so I would be very interested to know—I appreciate that the Minister may not have an answer today—what the practice will be in the future as a consequence of this. At the time, the operating company Abellio was able potentially to have gone to this piece of legislation to keep trains running, although it did not have to. Will nationalised rail companies be allowed to continue to keep services running so that users can get to work, or wherever they need to go, even though there are other people on strike? My expectation, candidly, is that no nationalised company will in any way go against any trade union strike. I cannot see a Labour Government Minister using that, so by repealing this legislation the Government will have lost a lever on behalf of many of the users of public services, or services put forward for public use, across the country.
At one point there was a discussion about schools. A similar issue had arisen with children during Covid, through no fault of their own and no fault of the teachers. Schools were kept open, by and large, physically for certain workers but also online. Undoubtedly, there was a challenge for education but also, frankly, the inconvenience to working parents when schools go on strike is particularly harmful and is disruptive to those families and the wider economy. But it was decided not to do that. We reverted back to making sure, in the spirit of the Act’s intentions, that we would keep it to what were deemed to be absolutely key public services. Otherwise, there would have been significant detriment to the wider public.
Amendment 258, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, on a review into the impact on small businesses, would be very helpful. Huge changes are being put in place after nine years of a piece of legislation that from the economy’s perspective has worked reasonably well. I appreciate that the trade unions may not have liked it—and I recall it being voted against, back when this was being debated in the House a decade ago—but it is vital to the wider economy that we get our companies growing.
It seems to change every time, but I think that overall the number one mission of this Government is growth and the economy. Yet they are starting to do things, through this Bill and other situations, that seem to be driven by ideology rather than pragmatism and practicality. As a consequence, the basics and the consequences of some of this legislation, or the repealing of existing legislation, need to be considered in proper economic depth. I would love this to have happened with an updated impact assessment for us to consider before we conclude the Bill. By the way, I am grateful to the Minister for making sure that the letter the Secretary of State sent me has been placed in the Library so that every Peer can see it, but it worries me that that issue will not be considered further.
Amendment 256 links with the idea of a certification officer. I will come to series of amendments on that soon, so I am not sure how much of a certification officer role will be left. When it applies its thoughts on how it goes about the enforcement of the laws to which it is subject—and which it is also doing on behalf of trade union members—it should consider our role in the world and, in particular, how that contributes to make sure that we have a growing economy. I am sure all Members of your Lordships’ House would agree that we need it to grow.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I oppose Amendment 254 and the other amendments in this group.
I also admit to a certain degree of pleasure that they have been tabled, because they draw attention to the fact that such was the rejection, not just of unions or the minimum service levels Act but of the public and employers, that not a single employer used the minimum service levels Act and not a single work notice was issued. That was because the Act was so widely regarded as unfair and unworkable and, in addition, that it would put fuel on the fire of difficult industrial disputes when all decent people wanted to resolve those disputes. Finally, it ignored the fact that life-and-limb voluntary agreements are in place in the industries and sectors where safety is genuinely at stake.
I thank the Benches opposite for putting forward the amendments.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway, and I took part in the debates on the 2023 Bill when it went through your Lordships’ House—obviously, on different Benches. She is right that no employer sought to use the powers in the 2023 Act, but the Act had only a relatively short existence in which it was available to employers before, in effect, we went into an election period.
I accept that, at the time, employers did not wish to take advantage of the Act’s provisions. The main purpose of the Act was to protect individual citizens to ensure that they had the levels of service that they needed. That goes beyond safety issues, which are the minimum levels to which unions tend to sign up for, so that ordinary citizens have minimum service levels to get themselves to work, to get themselves to their hospital appointments and so on. We did not give that Act enough time to see: first, whether it would work in practice, which I believe it would; and, secondly, whether it would be popular with the British public, which I am absolutely certain it would have been, if it had had a proper amount of time to come into effect.
I accept that those in the party opposite, throughout the passage of that Bill, registered their strong opposition to it. So I understand that, in power, they seek to expunge it from the statute book. However, that is a grave mistake that ignores the needs of ordinary citizens and places unions above the needs of ordinary citizens.
I particularly support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, which seeks an impact assessment on SMEs. I will always support an impact assessment on SMEs, because we have not had a proper one yet. I do not believe that Part 4 of the Bill will have the biggest impact on SMEs—other parts, particularly Part 1, will decimate SMEs—but I support any opportunity to get full public exposure of the impact of the provisions throughout the Bill on the health of our very important SME sector.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments from my noble friends Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral to require an impact assessment on the effect on the emergency services. That is proposed in Amendment 254, which seeks to insert proposed new subsection (4) to Clause 75; and in Amendment 255, on the ability of the services listed in the 1992 Act to provide minimum service levels with a new Section 75, requiring an impact assessment.
As noble Lords will remember, the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 enabled the Secretary of State to set minimum levels of services in essential services, so that employers could give notices to trade unions that their employees must comply with Section 234B. Specified services included health, fire and rescue,
“decommissioning of nuclear installations and management of radioactive waste”
and border security. These are vital areas of the public services and, indeed, often incorporate private sector services too.
The noble Baronesses, Lady O’Grady and Lady Coffey, both pointed out that the Act was not drawn on, but it is my view that it acted as a leverage, as has already been pointed out. I support also what the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said: given time, the Act would have come into its own. It was not given time, partly because the Opposition, who were then in pole position to take over from the Conservatives at the next general election, made it clear that they would repeal it and fought tooth and nail against the Bill throughout the debates.
Clause 75, to repeal the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 for minimum service levels in these sectors, will appear, as has been said, to many people in this country as an irresponsible act of Government. They see that, every time the Labour Opposition is about to come to power or has the chance of coming to power, the trade unions ramp up their campaign, often calling strikes and causing chaos in the public services—some emergency services included—thus providing the Labour Government with the springboard to measures such as the present one, and indeed the present clause.
However, even if it served as leverage, the chaos was mitigated as a result of the 2023 Act, with schools kept open, rail services running reliably, if not quite as frequently, and hospital treatments taking place. Given the militancy of the unionised workforce mainly in the public sector, employers there may not particularly relish serving workplace notices, but there may be an incentive, and it may be necessary to give employers in the public sector an incentive or an instruction to do so. Right now, the issue we and the public face is, will we have our emergency and essential public services for which the country as a whole pays handsomely through its taxes for such services? Will people have a right to the benefit of the service they pay for?
Being an employer is not an easy job; it is a hard one: one of constant interaction and agreement with employees on whom the success of any enterprise depends, be it a business or charity or the public sector. It may be necessary to have such a requirement, as was stipulated under the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, to bring employers who are not minded to go that extra mile to find an agreement to some dispute. It might be necessary to have that if there is no other incentive in place, and very often, in publicly paid for services, there is no incentive for an employer to go that extra mile.
Moreover, the prevalence of industrial action, with the disproportionate impact on the public sector and emergency services, must owe something—and does, in my view—to the prevalence of a proportionately large group of the public sector being unionised: almost 4 million, 3.9 million, in 2025 and 3.8 million in 2024, of the 6.4 million trade unionists.
This figure indicates that we are dealing with a potentially militant public sector union membership of around 50% who can hold our country to ransom if there is not a requirement for minimum service levels. This is not a very fair deal for employers who may want that extra muscle which the law has given to reach some agreement, and for the employees to reach an agreement also.
By inserting a requirement for an impact assessment, we shall at least be encouraging information to be supplied to taxpayers and the public, so they too can lend their voice to the need to mitigate the damage done by the lack of availability of treatment in hospitals and the damage done to children’s education, to border controls and to fire services, not to mention basic rail travel to go to work and earn a living, which is perpetuated by Clause 75. I therefore support my noble friend’s amendments, and I urge the Government, even if they are determined to bring forward this unnecessary clause, to allow the public to judge the impact by producing an impact assessment.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to this group of amendments, which introduce various review provisions linked to the operation and impact of measures in the Bill. Amendments 254 and 255, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, seek to ensure that the consequences of key provisions, particularly around the repeal of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act and the content of Clause 75, are properly assessed after implementation. While post-legislative scrutiny can be helpful, there is a balance to be struck between evaluation and reopening the substance of the reforms.
I shall also speak to Amendment 258, tabled by my noble friend Lord Fox, who is unfortunately unable to be here today. His amendment would require a review of the impact of Part 4 on small and medium-sized enterprises within six months of Royal Assent. I am sure he will be delighted by the number of voices that have joined in support of that approach today, because this is an important proposal. Small and medium-sized businesses do not have the legal departments or HR infrastructure that larger organisations enjoy. Clarity, simplicity and practical support are essential if those firms are to understand and comply with new duties under employment law, particularly where industrial relations are concerned. This amendment would help to ensure that legislation worked in practice for the full range of employees it affected, and I hope that the Minister will give it due consideration.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for her contribution and I will endeavour to respond to her amendments. However, I will not respond to Amendment 256, because it is not in this group; it is in group 6.
I respectfully disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor. Trade unions do not cause chaos in this country. They are fighting for the better pay of their members. This Bill will update the UK’s outdated employment laws and turn the page on an economy blighted by insecurity, poor productivity and low pay. We will raise the floor on workplace rights to deliver a stronger, fairer and brighter future for the world of work in the UK.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that we must be conscious of how the reforms will impact SMEs, and I will come back to that later.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for tabling Amendments 254 and 255, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for Amendment 258, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. On Amendments 254 and 255, our impact assessment of the repeal of the strikes Act was published on 21 October 2024 and is available for all to read. I remind all noble Lords that repealing the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 is a manifesto commitment. The Act received Royal Assent in July 2023, but, since then, 2.7 million working days were lost to strikes in 2023—up from 2.5 million in 2022. Therefore, the Act has not proved to be effective, even though it has had a short lifespan. It has not prevented a single day of industrial action but has contributed to industrial unrest. Before the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, most industrial action was consulted on, and voluntary agreements were put in place for minimum service levels in the interests of security. The system worked perfectly, so I do not see why this Act should be in place. There is nothing new to add to that assessment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his response, and to my noble friends Lady Coffey, Lady Noakes and Lady Lawlor for their comments. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for introducing the important amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, which I neglected to speak to but will do in a second, for which I apologise. Regarding the Minister’s assertion that the unions do not cause chaos, perhaps somebody should alert the RMT to that. By its own estimation, it cost the economy £5 billion in 2023. I would call that fairly chaotic.
As we conclude this debate, I express some disappointment at the Government’s response to the modest and reasonable amendments that we have tabled. We have simply asked for evidence. A number of the assertions that the Minister made are based on none whatever. We have asked for an impact assessment—we repeatedly ask for impact assessments on all manner of aspects of this Bill. I will take him up on his offer of that meeting. However, to come back to the implementation plan, it would be a much better-informed meeting if we had an implementation plan and a timeline. We will not drop this until the Minister can provide one. I am sure he will be working “at pace”, in his noble friend’s phraseology.
All we have done is ask for the Government to pause and consider the real-world consequences of repealing a law that was designed to protect public safety during times of industrial action. The Government claim, with some optimism, that removing the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 will somehow improve industrial relations. However, when they were asked to produce any evidence from employers, unions, the public or independent experts, none was forthcoming. There is no analysis of outcomes, no tracking of safety impacts, no consultation findings and no plan for what replaces the protections that they are so eager to tear down. In short, there is no case, just conviction without content.
We could go on and talk about how this is not theoretical, and I would again point noble Lords to look at Birmingham. If the Government truly believe that the 2023 Act was flawed, they should prove the case with data, with stakeholder consultation and with a sober assessment of what ought to follow in its place, and not simply repeal it blindly, prematurely and with no credible alternative offered. We are not asking for the impossible. Our amendments ask for a review, a report and a basic assessment of impact. They are measured, responsible and in keeping with the House’s role in ensuring good governance.
I have two more points. I should have acknowledged and expressed very strong support for Amendment 258 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox. That rightly seeks a review into the impact of Part 4 of the Bill on small and medium-sized enterprises, and I look forward to picking that subject up with him again when he is back.
I note that my noble friend Lady Coffey asked a very specific question about the nationalised rail industry. I am sure we would all like an answer, so perhaps the noble Lord will write with the Government’s intentions when it comes to governing that particular sector. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, this whole group of stand part notices is basically about the removal of powers from the certification officer. We have already debated Clause 77. In thinking through what is going on here, I wondered whether there would be anything of a certification officer left, because it feels like a lot of this stripping out of certain aspects—for example, in Clauses 79 to 83—is very limiting in terms of what could be left to be done.
Since the Trade Union Act 2016 came into effect, the world has somewhat moved on in terms of transparency and wanting to know what is going on in an organisation. I appreciate they are not state bodies, but trade unions play an important role in our country. It is important that, while recognising there is a declining membership, not in the public sector but in the private sector, for those people who are contributing money every week, every month, every year—whatever it is—having a good amount of information in a consistent way is a good thing in terms of thinking about how we promote aspects of transparency.
We have had considerable debate, as I say, about Clause 77. But I am struggling to understand what the issue really is—why it is so difficult for these things to be produced. In thinking about investigatory powers, let us put a bit of reality or real life into this. There has been a situation within the last six months where an election for the general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union happened. On a 29% turnout, a person was elected. That turnout of votes equated to something like fewer than 10,000 people casting their votes in favour of that candidate. However, it was subsequently discovered that 3,000 ballot papers were not issued. I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong, but the difference between winning and losing was less than 3,000. Understandably, the person who lost, who had been in post for nearly 20 years, was somewhat aggrieved. However, when it was decided there had obviously been a breach and something had gone wrong, the certification officer went through a proper process. The Government may well argue that it would have been safer to email out ballots, or do an online ballot, rather than relying on the post. I am sure the union staff were not the only people struggling with things not being delivered by Royal Mail at that time. However, after that process, the losing candidate chose not to require the election to be rerun, which would have been within the gift of the certification officer. In terms of general justice, without having to go to the expense of going to the High Court, a certification officer was a simple way to try to remediate something that was clearly unfair.
However, the person who lost—I am not going to name them—was then very quickly appointed general secretary of another trade union. This time, that was challenged directly by the union’s members. In that instance, I think they went not to the certification but immediately to the High Court. So, one person having lost an election, another trade union—that is the teaching union—used its procedures incorrectly to put them in place as its new general secretary. Then, thanks to the legal challenge, the executive committee of that union recognised that it had not acted properly. This same person, by the way, is still acting general secretary of that trade union. The election commences on Thursday; it is up to the members who they decide to vote for, of course.
I looked at the fairness of a variety of the decisions that the certification officer made over time, and the same teaching union was in breach a few years ago because its general secretary outstayed their elected term. They were then made an acting general secretary and, about a year later, there was another election. It is very expensive if trade union members have to go to the courts over these sorts of things. As I researched these clauses and found out what has happened in real life, it reminded me somewhat of Animal Farm, and how—what was it?—“Two legs bad, four legs good” evolved over time to suit the needs of those who decided that they would be in charge.
I appreciate that trade unions might feel that we should not need to have a certification officer, but these are good examples of where people have had recourse to an independent person who, by law, is not subject to ministerial direction. Those people can have complete confidence in the integrity of the certification officer, and that going to them will lead to somebody having a look, without the cost of going to the High Court—as we know, that is expensive. I understand that Labour has this mantra that it is going to repeal anything to do with the 2016 Act, but I really want the Government to consider why, seeing some of the changes that have happened. By the way, at the same time, they are bringing in different rules for employers in dealing with their employees. It is perfectly valid for them to do so, but just imagine the impact these sorts of stories have. It so happens that both the trade unions in my examples are public sector unions, and we have seen their overall membership increase, but we should not be surprised if lack of confidence has started to drift people’s concerns away on why they need to pay to be a member of a trade union.
I wish the Government would consider carefully what the removal of any of these clauses would do to help the average worker and the average trade unionist, who may not be highly connected and may not have chosen to join a political party or to dedicate their lives, from quite an early age, to being part of that trade union leadership. They should also think about, and this is one of the reasons why I got triggered, what happens when somebody completely left-field—or right-field, whatever—comes in and their union’s ruling body decides, “Yeah, we like the look of that person” and they are not sure why; it may have felt sorry that he had just lost an election elsewhere. Let us think carefully about whether it is the right approach to remove all these powers from the certification officer, which I think people from every level can see are used, rarely and not extensively, to apply some common sense.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I will speak in support of my noble friend Lady Coffey. I thank her for bringing forward these crucial amendments to oppose Clauses 76 and 78 to 83 standing part of the Bill. In doing so, she not only upholds the integrity of trade union regulation but calls out a deeply troubling double standard in the Government’s approach to industrial relations.
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 all those who have contributed to this debate, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for giving me the opportunity to speak to these clauses and, I hope, to reassure her. Let me point out why they are important provisions that must stand part of the Bill.
The theme these clauses all share is that they remove some of the unnecessary bureaucratic burdens placed on trade unions as a result of the Trade Union Act 2016. This includes removing powers placed on the certification officer which have never been used since their introduction. Your Lordships’ House will be aware that the Government’s manifesto committed to repealing the 2016 Act, and these clauses deliver on that. They will enable trade unions to focus more of their time and efforts on delivering in the interests of their members.
Clause 76 seeks to reverse the effect of Section 7 of the Trade Union Act 2016. It will remove the additional reporting requirements imposed on trade unions for their annual returns to the certification officer concerning details of industrial action taken during the reporting period. I can assure noble Lords that trade unions will still be required to submit an annual return to the certification officer, but the amount of information they will have to include will be reduced. In addition, unions will continue to be required to provide information in those annual returns relating to their governance and finances, including the management of their political funds, as they have done for many years.
Clause 78 will remove the power of the certification officer to enforce certain requirements relating to trade unions’ annual returns. However, the certification officer will still hold enforcement powers for the other remaining annual return requirements—that is, those not removed by Clauses 76 and 77, for example in relation to a union’s financial affairs and governance. Clause 79 will repeal the certification officer’s enhanced investigatory powers, which include an ability to compel trade unions to produce documents, the power for inspectors to launch investigations, and the related power of enforcement.
The reason why Clause 79 is introduced is that the enhanced powers created by the 2016 Act are simply not necessary. No evidence of regulatory failure existed at the time of the 2016 Act, and the statutory obligations that existed prior to that Act regarding trade union finances, governance and reporting requirements were found to be sufficient. In addition, the Certification Officer has never used the additional powers since their introduction. Removing the Certification Officer’s enhanced investigatory powers is part of the Government’s commitment to reset industrial relations and ensure that employers, unions and the Government work together in co-operation and through negotiation.
In the examples that the noble Baroness gave, the Certification Officer—as I think she admitted—acted with complete propriety and authority. I assure her that unions continue to be hugely respectful of the power and authority of the Certification Officer. I also assure her that the Certification Officer’s role is partly to ensure that the rights of workers are properly protected. I really do not recognise the noble Baroness’s analogy with Animal Farm. Our repeal does not affect the ability of a trade union member to complain to the Certification Officer about an election and have that investigated.
Similarly, Clause 80 will remove certain powers of the Certification Officer to investigate trade unions proactively without first having received a complaint from a member of that trade union. Trade unions are voluntary organisations run by and for their members. We are returning the Certification Officer’s role to one where the Certification Officer adjudicates where the Certificate Officer receives members’ complaints in relation to a union. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that members will not be shy about complaining if they feel that an injustice has been done within the conduct of their union. However, the Certification Officer will retain the power to investigate a union’s financial affairs. The Certification Officer’s powers have been in place for many years and were brought in prior to the Trade Union Act 2016.
Clause 81 will reverse Section 19 of the Trade Union Act 2016 to remove the Certification Officer’s ability to impose financial penalties on trade unions. I can tell noble Lords that the Certification Officer has not imposed a single financial penalty to date. However, the Certification Officer will retain the power to issue enforcement orders following the changes made by Clause 81, and if those orders are not complied with the the union could be found in contempt of court.
Clause 82 will remove the Secretary of State’s power to make regulations that require the Certification Officer to impose a levy on employers’ associations and trade unions. It was resisted by employers’ associations and unions when it was introduced. The levy impedes on the rights of voluntary association and has attracted criticism from the International Labour Organization. The ILO was concerned that the levy could negatively impact on the rights of workers to organise and bargain collectively and reduce the financial capacity of trade unions to carry out such collective bargaining on behalf of their members. The Government believe that we should interfere as little as possible in the activities of social partners, which are, as I say, voluntary associations.
Clause 83 will reverse changes made by Section 21 of the Trade Union Act 2016 so that the right of appeal against decisions of the Certification Officer to the Employment Appeal Tribunal is only on a question of law, as opposed to being on questions of fact as well as law. That returns the appeal process to the position before the Trade Union Act 2016, where appeals against the Certification Officer’s decisions were on points of law only. It also aligns with many other enforcement bodies on employment law. For example, appeals against the decisions of employment tribunals are considered only on points of law, not points of fact.
I hope that that explanation has been helpful and therefore that Clauses 76, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82 and 83 stand part of the Bill.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“Certification Officer: growth dutyWhen discharging its general functions, the Certification Officer must, so far as reasonably possible, act in such a way as to advance the following objectives—(a) the international competitiveness of the economy of the United Kingdom, and(b) its growth in the medium to long term.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Certification Officer to advance the objectives of the international competitiveness of the economy and its growth in the medium to long term.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Coffey mentioned a short while ago, we have been told by this Government on numerous occasions that growth is their number one priority. Growth, growth and more growth has become something of a mantra for Ministers, but the harsh reality is that their actions are consistently undermining this stated objective, and their latest economic performance demonstrates the urgent need for the amendment before us today.
The UK economy shrank more than expected in April. The standard measure of economic output, GDP, contracted a sharp 0.3% according to data from the Office for National Statistics. Additional costs on businesses were also levied during that month as employer national insurance contributions took effect, which businesses told the ONS played a part in their performance. The biggest part of the economy, the services sector, contracted by 0.4% and manufacturing dropped by 0.9%. The Government are manifestly failing to reach their stated growth target.
It is not enough for the Government to tell workers, businesses and the British public what they want to hear about growth while simultaneously implementing policies that actively undermine economic competitiveness. The trade union provisions in the Bill represent a perfect example of this contradiction: they expand the protections and rights that will inevitably increase costs, reduce flexibility and diminish our international competitiveness, all while the Government claim to be prioritising growth.
My amendment would require the Certification Officer, when discharging functions under the Bill’s expanded trade union framework, to advance the objectives of international competitiveness and medium to long-term economic growth. It represents a vital safeguard against the economic damage that unconstrained implementation of these provisions could inflict. The Certification Officer oversees trade union administration from registration to financial transparency to complaint procedures. Under the Bill, these functions will expand significantly as new rights and protections are introduced. Without a growth duty, there is no mechanism to ensure that the Certification Officer considers the broader economic implications of how these expanded powers are exercised.
We operate in an intensely competitive global economy. Our European neighbours and international competitors are not standing still while we load additional costs and restrictions on to British businesses. When the Certification Officer makes decisions about trade union regulation, registration and oversight, those decisions must be made with full awareness of their impact on our ability to compete internationally. Countries such as Germany, despite having strong trade union traditions, maintain regulatory frameworks that prioritise economic competitiveness. Singapore, Ireland and other successful economies have demonstrated that worker protection and economic growth are not mutually exclusive, except when regulators are required to balance these objectives explicitly.
This amendment ensures that as we expand trade union rights and protections, we do so in in a way that enhances rather than undermines our economic position. It requires the Certification Officer to ask not just whether a decision serves trade union interests but whether it serves the broader national interest in maintaining a competitive and growing economy.
The concept of growth duties is well established across government precisely because regulators have learned that narrow focus on single objectives can create unintended economic consequences. Financial regulators have competitiveness objectives because financial regulation that ignores competitiveness can drive business overseas. Planning authorities must consider economic impact because planning decisions that ignore economic consequences can destroy local economies. Environmental regulators operate within frameworks that balance protection with economic considerations because environmental regulation that ignores economic reality becomes counterproductive.
The offshore employment trend demonstrates exactly why such balanced approaches are essential. When regulators focus solely on enhancing protections without considering economic consequences, they risk creating conditions where the protections become meaningless because the activity they are meant to regulate simply moves beyond their jurisdiction. It would be extraordinary if trade union regulation, which directly affects workplace costs, flexibility and productivity, were exempt from such considerations. This amendment brings the Certification Officer into line with best practice across government by requiring explicit consideration of economic impact.
The Government may argue that trade union regulation should focus solely on worker protection without economic considerations, but this position is fundamentally flawed for a number of reasons, and recent evidence makes it increasingly untenable. For example, it would create an artificial separation between industrial relations and economic policy that exists nowhere else in government and has proven counterproductive in practice. Every other area of regulation requires consideration of economic impact precisely because regulators have learned that ignoring economic consequences undermines policy objectives. It would also contradict the Government’s stated priority of growth while simultaneously demonstrating the practical impossibility of separating worker protection from economic performance.
When companies such as The Legends Agency can build multi-million-pound businesses by helping UK employers avoid UK employment law, the Government’s approach has clearly failed on its own terms. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I am a great fan of international competitiveness and growth objectives for regulators. When the first one was introduced for financial services regulators in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, I thought it was an incredibly important addition to the way regulation of financial services is undertaken. Just last week, your Lordships’ Financial Services Regulation Committee issued its report on how that international competitiveness and growth objective is working, and I commend it to noble Lords.
I support what my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom has said about applying the duty to the Certification Officer, but I invite him to consider whether there is a much more important area where such a duty should be applied in this Bill, which is to when the Secretary of State makes decisions about, for example, the enforcement provisions or making the various regulations that we know are necessary to make Part 1, and indeed other parts of the Bill, operate effectively.
The most important aspect of the Bill is going to be driven by what the Secretary of State does once it is enacted, but there is not an equivalent requirement on the Secretary of State to take into account the needs of international competitiveness and growth. It is essential for the Secretary of State to have that at the front of his mind when making regulations that will have such a big impact on the way that businesses operate in this country. I therefore commend my noble friend’s amendment, but if he is considering bringing something back on Report, he might consider something a little broader.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, this nation must earn its place in the world, and, regrettably, we are losing to some of our industrial competitors, particularly in energy-intensive industries such as steel, aluminium and so on. We must live by our wits, and that means increasingly leaning on highly skilled, knowledge-based employment in an economy that values strong intellectual property rights, the rule of contract and property rights themselves. That requires an economy with flexibility and agility.
Earlier today, along with other noble Lords, I sat on the Home-based Working Committee. We are seeing firsthand how the world of work is changing, not just in the way that we go to work but in the way that we sometimes work from home. The entire technological underpinning of our economy is changing too. We have not yet seen the end of artificial intelligence and what it might do to low-skilled, somewhat transactional arrangements.
It does not help the economy, and by extension those who work in it, if all participating employers and unions do not recognise that we have a duty to move with the times. We cannot put a wall around our economy and create some high-cost walled garden as the rest of the world trades its way to prosperity, leaving us behind. I strongly support Amendment 256 and want to give more power to the officer who, more than anyone, can cajole and encourage workers’ representatives to recognise the world as it is, rather than the world as they might wish it to be.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for tabling Amendment 256. We fully recognise the importance of supporting growth and international competitiveness across our economy, and we will of course continue to pursue policies that will deliver on our economic ambition. However, we do not consider this duty to be appropriate for the certification officer.
The certification officer is not a traditional regulator; they are an independent quasi-judicial officeholder. Their core functions are to oversee regulatory compliance fairly and impartially and to ensure trade unions and employers’ associations adhere to statutory requirements in relation to their finances and governance. This includes investigating complaints, maintaining accurate registers and ensuring that democratic processes are upheld. Imposing a duty to promote growth and competitiveness would cut across this role. It risks introducing competing priorities, blurring legal clarity and ultimately undermining confidence in the CO’s neutrality. We cannot require the certification officer both to conduct their judicial and regulatory functions and to deliver economic outcomes. The certification officer has no role in relation to the international competitiveness of the United Kingdom economy or its growth in the medium to long term.
As noble Lords will know, this Government have been active in requiring a number of regulators to apply a growth duty. Those bodies to which the growth duty currently applies are purely regulators—regulators that set strategies and make decisions that significantly affect the type, scale and location of economic activity in important sectors. The decisions regulators take can set the parameters for economic activity across the economy, and, of course, we recognise that; but the certification officer does not have this responsibility or power. We share the noble Lord’s commitment to economic growth, but it must be pursued in the right way. Furthermore, requiring the certification officer to follow a growth duty would not be practicable, and there is no evidence that imposing such a duty would have any meaningful impact on the UK’s growth or international competitiveness. It would be like asking a court to consider cases based on their impact on economic growth rather than on the evidence of the case.
For those reasons, I must ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, to withdraw Amendment 256.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her answer, but I have to say that I am unpersuaded. The gist of it was that the certification officer does not have either the responsibility or the power, but by definition this amendment would deliver both those things. I completely agree with my noble friend Lady Noakes, and I shall take her suggestions on board and have a careful look at this. I do not believe that this amendment and the suggestions she made are mutually exclusive; in fact, if anything, they are very complementary. I thank my noble friend Lord Fuller for his comments, which, frankly, were just an expression of complete common sense.
I express my disappointment at the Government’s rejecting this amendment. I think it reveals more about the Government’s true priorities, frankly, than all the rhetoric about growth that we have heard. The Government are absolutely right to identify growth as a priority, but they will not find it in this Bill. In fact, there is nothing in the Bill that will bring any growth. I challenge the Minister to identify a single provision in these hundreds of pages that will increase productivity, enhance competitiveness or create jobs. The Government’s own impact assessment suggests the same: it is a document notably silent on growth benefits, while cataloguing increasing costs and regulatory burdens.
If the Minister is genuinely confident that the Bill will support growth, and if she truly believes that the expanded trade union protections and enhanced worker rights will somehow boost economic performance, I am surprised and somewhat mystified that she will not accept this amendment. The argument was that the certification officer is not a traditional regulator, but they still have a regulatory function, so I do not really see what difference that makes, frankly. What could be the objection to requiring the certification officer to consider growth when discharging functions under a Bill the Government claim supports growth? If these provisions truly advance economic competitiveness, a growth duty should be welcomed as a validation of the Government’s approach.
I could go on, but I do not see the point. The Government have rejected a genuine opportunity to demonstrate that their growth rhetoric has substance. The amendment would have required no fundamental changes to their approach, simply consideration of the economic impact when implementing trade union provisions. It would have aligned trade union regulation with best practice across government, while preserving all the work protections the Government claim to champion. The fact that they cannot even accept a modest requirement demonstrates that the commitment to growth is hollow rhetoric. It is designed to disguise an agenda focused more on trade union empowerment, regardless of economic consequences. How very disappointing for our great nation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Coffey
“Right to consider employer offerAfter Section 69 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, insert the following new section—“69A Right to consider employer offerA trade union must present any offer from the employer to their membership for a vote whether or not the trade union supports the offer.””
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, noble Lords may think that this amendment is a little odd: why does there need to be a right to consider an employer offer? It came about because of something that happened in the Port of Felixstowe within the last few years. At one point there was huge frustration on the part not just of the employer but of several workers, because, with the union and the employer negotiating in good faith—I am not criticising the union at all—the offer then made did not need to be put to the members. I am not suggesting that this is a loophole: I appreciate that there is back and forth and a current requirement to give lots of notice, with everything being done by post and so on. I can understand that it may not be reasonable that, every time an employer moves by a penny or so, that has to be spelt out. That would be truly ridiculous, but there is something to be said for establishing what is going on. Where is the leverage being applied?
Unfortunately—and I am not saying that there is a causal link between the two issues, but there is definitely a correlation—after a considerable number of strikes in the port of Felixstowe, within 18 months it was announced that a significant shipping line would no longer use Felixstowe as its principal destination in the United Kingdom but would go to the new London port at Tilbury instead. As I say, I am not saying there is a direct causal link, but I have my concerns about the lack of reliability. This, by the way, was the first dispute in 30 years at the port of Felixstowe, and it was quite fractious. It got more fractious because people started to break the strike. I understand that that is not the ideal place for people to be; nevertheless, people—although not everybody—felt that their union was not looking after them and their interests, but perhaps starting to look after the national interest. That led to quite a lot of aggro, not just face to face but on Facebook, with families falling out. In quite a small community, the impact of that can be quite substantial.
When I was speaking to people who worked at the port and to the employer, what stayed with me for some time was that they would have liked the chance to vote, even though the organisers of their local union—or, as they believed, the national union—decided they could not. For that reason, and recognising the transition that is coming as a consequence of the Bill, such as moving to much greater use of digital ballots, there is something to be said for enabling workers not to have to go through something as awful as breaking a strike. I understand why trade union members do not want to do that; but they feel that things need to be done in their interests locally, and that their employer should be allowed to make the offer.
I have put the amendment in this way—I am conscious of what the noble Lord, Lord Prentis of Leeds, who is no longer in his place, said earlier—because employers should not be trying to get around all sorts of rules to stop people being members of trade unions. That is already protected in law; the noble Lord referred to a situation that has only recently been resolved.
In effect, this amendment addresses one of the trade union disputes in my experience that I believe has had a consequential economic impact on a key part of the east coast. I should say that I intend to respond to comments made on this amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
The noble Baroness will need to because it is an amendment, and therefore at the end one has to ask for it to be either considered or, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I support this amendment, but not for the reasons my noble friend gave. Many years ago—Members on the Government Benches may realise quite how long ago this is when I give the names of the unions concerned, which are long since consigned to history—I was the director of a small haulage firm. It no longer exists or trades, but I cut my teeth on labour relations behind the wheel.
In our small business, which employed about 50 people, there were three types of worker: those who were not in a union at all, a small number who were with the TGWU—that dates me—and those with a new union, the United Road Transport Union. The shop steward of the URTU came to see me and said: “It’s like this, John. I think that you should recognise our union”. So I did. It was personally convenient to deal with one person rather than try to have a mass meeting with 30 or 40 people, all with different views. Unlike what some noble Lords might think of those on the Conservative Benches, I found a huge amount of value in being able to negotiate with the URTU, which had the most members but was not entirely pervasive in our company. Arthur Harris was in the TGWU—he was such a long-standing member of our business that he was employee no. 1 on our payroll system—and was not about to go to the URTU for a moment.
The point of this story is that I negotiated in good faith with the URTU and recognised that it had the most members. When making an agreement, we were somewhat apart but not completely, and I said: “Peter, put this offer to them and let’s see what they say”. He did not really want to, but the point is that I needed to make the offer as well to the other union, the TGWU, and to those members who were not in a union at all.
My noble friend made the point about the Port of Felixstowe and I inferred from her remarks that there was a single union to deal with, but that is not the landscape for many organisations. Later this evening I will talk about my experiences in local government, where there are three different unions involved—UNISON, Unite and the GMB—and a complicated negotiating environment.
I support this amendment because it provides equality to the smaller unions, not just the big ones, some of which have their own agendas. It is incumbent on all unionised labour to at least see what is on the table, whether or not their union negotiated it. That is why my noble friend’s Amendment 257A is very important and should be given proper consideration; it recognises the complex labour landscape found in many companies, particularly in private business, not just the monolithic larger organisations where there are single unions, facility time and other things.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend’s amendment, which, as she explained, addresses a fundamental democratic deficit in our current industrial relations framework. I thank my noble friend Lord Fuller for giving his personal experience of how important this deficit can be if it is not addressed.
This amendment would require trade unions to present any employer offer to their membership for a vote, regardless of whether the union leadership supports it. My noble friend gave the example of Felixstowe; others could give similar examples, such as what has been happening with the Birmingham strike. This is not an anti-union measure—it is a pro-democracy measure that seeks to strengthen the voice of individual workers within the collective bargaining process. It recognises that in a democratic society it should be workers themselves, not union officials, who decide whether an employer’s offer meets their needs and aspirations.
The principle underlying this amendment is simple and would be seen as uncontroversial in any other democratic context: those affected by a decision should have the right to make that decision for themselves. When union leaders can simply reject employer offers without consulting their membership, they effectively deny workers the fundamental right to democratic participation in decisions that fundamentally affect their livelihoods. We would surely not accept a system where parliamentary leaders could reject government proposals without allowing MPs to vote. We would not tolerate local councils where executives could dismiss motions without having to present them to councillors. The same should surely apply to trade unions.
This amendment recognises that the priorities, circumstances and risk tolerances of individual workers may differ from those of their union leadership. A young worker saving for a house deposit may take a very different view of sustained strike action from that of an established worker nearing retirement. A worker in precarious financial circumstances may prefer settlement on reasonable but suboptimal terms to prolonged uncertainty and loss of income. Surely we all want to avoid a situation where workers are denied a voice in decisions that so profoundly affect their lives.
Contrary to weakening collective bargaining, this amendment would strengthen it by increasing member engagement and ensuring that union positions truly reflect membership priorities. When workers know that they will have the final say on offers, they are more likely to engage with the bargaining process and provide clear guidance about their priorities. Enhanced member involvement can improve union negotiating positions by ensuring that they are based on genuine membership preferences rather than leadership assumptions. It can also increase employer confidence in the bargaining process by ensuring that negotiated agreements will not be undermined by membership rejection.
Although many trade unions always act in good faith when considering employer offers, this amendment would put protections into legislation to prevent bad actors denying workers their democratic voice. Without legislative safeguards, the system could enable a dangerous information asymmetry where union officials control what information reaches members and the manner in which that information is presented.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for tabling Amendment 257A. I am happy to explain to the noble Baroness that this amendment is not appropriate.
As the noble Baroness knows, trade unions are already required by existing legislation to ballot their members before commencing any industrial action. Union executives are therefore required to obtain a mandate from their members to negotiate with their employer on their behalf before industrial action can commence. We believe that union executives, as representatives of their members, are best placed to judge whether an offer is acceptable and in the best interests of the union members before deciding whether to ballot their members. Balloting members is a considerable financial and administrative challenge and repeated ballots could cause an unnecessary burden—as well as confusing members as to what was being proposed and the likelihood of a higher offer.
Amendment 257A would also remove the power of union executives to negotiate on behalf of their members for a deal that they consider will deliver before balloting members on an offer. This is one of the main reasons that members join a union: they delegate to those negotiators to get the best deal for them. The negotiators will have done a great deal of detailed research on economic indicators, what is happening in their market, on the knowledge of the financial stability of the business, and so on. They will take a very wide range of factors into account into that bargaining process. This is why, quite often, negotiations take time, because all those factors have to be discussed in some detail in a way that an individual member would not be able to do.
Furthermore, the amendment has no safeguards to prevent gaming. Were we to accept it, there are risks that employers could submit multiple derisory offers to unions in order to interfere with the industrial action ballot mandate by forcing the union to constantly re-ballot members on derisory offers at the cost of the union. As the noble Baroness said, balloting on small increases would be ridiculous, but this is exactly what her amendment would require.
We consider, therefore, that existing legislation is effective. As union representatives are elected by their members to represent them, union executives should have the discretion as to whether they put an offer by an employer to their membership. If a union executive believes an offer is acceptable, they should be free to put that offer to their membership and make that judgment at the time.
We think the noble Baroness’s amendment is unnecessary; the current system works well, and it brings great benefits to individual members. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I thank the Minister for her reply. She will be aware that I am a Back-Bencher and I do not have hundreds of civil servants crafting the perfect amendment and saying when to discuss these sorts of issues.
I am conscious that through the Bill, the mandate will be extended to 12 months. There is, therefore, the potential for handing over considerable power that is delegated to negotiators. I fear there will be situations that develop that can have economic consequences on workers when there are spats that not everybody wants to be involved in. I recognise all the other changes the Government are making in digitising the operations of the trade unions, and that is why I thought it was worth discussing at this point.
This has been a very useful debate. I thank my noble friends Lord Fuller and Lord Hunt for their support and consideration—and their experience, particularly that of my noble friend Lord Fuller. Having taken all this into account, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Coffey
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 257B simply because I did not see the answer in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill. This is quite a straightforward one for the Minister.
In Section 293 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, the regulations are normally done by negative resolution—or the annulment, as set out in new subsection (6). However, I want to understand why the Government felt that these particular regulations needed to be done through the affirmative procedure. They are not the only changes—that I am aware of—in the Bill to that section, or others, of the Act. Can the Minister explain why they have been singled out? Given the trend of your Lordships’ House over many years, why do we not move to having affirmative resolutions instead of annulments for these ones in the future? I beg to move.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for her amendments; they are measured, necessary and principled amendments to Clause 85, which rightly restore a degree of parliamentary scrutiny that had been quietly eroded in the original draft of the Bill. As we stated at Second Reading, there are 173 delegated powers in the Bill, which is unacceptable—not just to those the legislation will impact, but to the House.
In the Minister’s contributions on similar legislation in the past, she expressed her strong reservations about the use of delegated powers. I recall well her interventions, which were made with clarity and conviction, as she tabled amendments recommended by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. But we now find ourselves considering a clause that does precisely what she once warned against because it carves out certain sensitive and constitutionally significant areas and exposes them only to selective scrutiny.
The original version of Clause 85 created a two-tier system. Some regulations would require affirmative approval from this House, while others—no less consequential—would not. This piecemeal approach to oversight is not only undesirable but unnecessary. Regulations made under Section 293 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act are not merely technical: they pertain to fundamental matters, such as the rights of trade unions, the balance of power between employers and employees, and the protections afforded to those who take lawful industrial action. It is therefore only right and proper that all regulations made under this section should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure: they should be laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament.
My noble friend’s amendment achieves this. It does so with economy of language, but with significant constitutional consequence. It removes the artificial distinction introduced by subsection (5), and instead applies a uniform standard of scrutiny to the entirety of Section 293.
Since the Government took office, many of us across these Benches have expressed concern about the growing use of skeleton Bills, Henry VIII clauses and broad enabling powers that allow Ministers to legislate without adequate consultation or scrutiny. This amendment is a quiet but firm step in the other direction back towards balance, principle and the proper functioning of Parliament.
Again, I thank my noble friend for tabling her amendment, and I hope the Government will not merely accept it but embrace it to show their commitment to transparency and to the constitutional propriety of this House.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for his contribution. I remember standing before him during the PRaM Bill and we discussed this very matter. Some of this negative resolution is required because not only does it save parliamentary time but it is technical. Anyway, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for tabling Amendments 257B and 257C, which would make all the powers under Clause 56 subject to the affirmative procedure, as well as existing regulation-making powers that are currently covered by the negative procedure, by virtue of current Section 293 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
It is worth noting that most of the access regulations are already subject to the affirmative procedure. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, mentioned, only four of the 12 delegated powers are subject to the negative procedure. Given the technical nature of those delegated powers, and to save parliamentary time, the Government are of the position that making them subject to the affirmative procedure would not be appropriate.
Further to this, as mentioned in previous debates, all regulations under Clause 57 will be consulted on via public consultation, the outcome of which will be published for all to see. This is an important process, which will help ensure that our policy development is informed by the practical experience and needs of trade unions, businesses and stakeholders.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, will have noted in previous debates in this place that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee said that
“it is heartening that in a Bill with so many delegated powers”—
the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, mentioned 173—it had
“only found four on which to raise concerns”.
Clause 56 was not one of those. Therefore, I ask that the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, to withdraw Amendment 257B.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his comments. Undoubtedly, in the last decade, this House has started to move to have far more under the affirmative procedure, so it gets a level of scrutiny, although I appreciate your Lordships’ House does not vote against them. That is how to make sure legislation is properly considered, recognising it will be put to debate, which is certainly not the case with many regulations considered in the negative way. With that, I beg to withdraw.
Lord Freyberg
“Unionisation and collective bargaining in the arts and cultural sector(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations establish—(a) alternative collective bargaining models for trade unions in the arts and cultural sector,(b) provisions for financial viability assessments to ensure mandatory unionisation does not place unsustainable financial burdens on smaller institutions, and(c) a dispute resolution mechanism tailored to cultural institutions.(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations define which organisations form part of the arts and cultural sector.(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to the negative resolution procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment establishes a tailored unionisation framework for arts and cultural organisations that includes alternative bargaining models for freelancers, financial viability assessments, and sector-specific dispute resolution to balance worker protections with organisational sustainability.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, this group of amendments addresses the arts and cultural sector. I declare my interest as an artist member of DACS. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for their support for the various amendments I have tabled in this group. I also thank the Minister and her officials for meeting with the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and me earlier this month to discuss these amendments.
The arts and cultural sector is of national importance. Creative industries generated some £126 billion in gross value added, representing almost 6% of the economy, and supported roughly 2.4 million jobs, as of 2022. However, its workforce is highly atypical. A recent study found that a fully 32% of creative and cultural jobs are freelance, more than double the 14% of the wider UK workforce. Creative organisations tend to be small, low-margin and reliant on irregular income, such as ticket sales, grants and philanthropy. In short, a one-size-fits-all employment regime risks harming both workers and institutions. Our amendments in this group aim to strengthen protections for arts workers—especially freelancers—without inadvertently pushing theatres, galleries and arts charities over the edge. I remind the House of the earlier Amendment 16, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, regarding theatres and casual workers, as another worry.
The creative workforce is famously project-based and freelance-heavy. For example, BECTU reports that many film, TV and theatre freelancers were initially excluded from Covid support schemes. We propose sector-specific measures: flexible collective bargaining, phased implementation of new rules and targeted support, balanced by accountability measures such as impact reviews. These proposals reflect best practice abroad. For instance, new EU guidelines explicitly enable self-employed workers to engage in collective bargaining, and many countries even use cultural levies to fund arts employment. Our aim is therefore practical: to adapt the Bill’s intentions to the realities of the arts. It is a vital opportunity for the sector’s needs to be heard.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, my Amendment 287 in this group seeks to establish a freelance commissioner. I thank my noble friends Lord Freyberg and Lord Colville, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who have supported this amendment. I support all the other amendments in this group, including Amendment 286, which is similar in intent in wishing to improve the situation of freelancers in the creative industries, and Amendments 301 and 302 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, which very usefully seek to define what a freelancer is.
The only thing that I would add to Amendment 301 is the category of sole trader, which would highlight the point that an artist is always working, whether they have a client or not and whether we are talking about a visual artist, a photographer, a musician, a composer or a novelist. The buyer, the publisher, the venue or gallery may materialise at some stage, but it is sometimes a thing of the future. In the creative industries, worker and client are not always walking hand in hand at any one time.
I very much support the Bill as far as it goes, but a truly modern employment Bill—and it is an employment Bill, not an employee Bill—would have included consideration of the self-employed and freelancers, a group which of course includes the creative industries. On 5 June in the previous debate in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, said
“we cannot claim to be modernising employment law if we ignore how it interacts with one of the fastest growing and culturally significant sectors of our economy”.—[Official Report, 5/6/25; col. 950.]
In trying to deal with the problem of zero-hours contracts in the wider economy, the Government are already encroaching on this territory but without properly assessing the wider effects of doing so—one good reason why the whole landscape of employment needs to be looked at through employment law in the round.
As the previous debate on the amendment on theatre workers, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, pointed up, there is the danger of unintended consequences affecting workers in the creative industries. Freelancers constitute around 15% of the total workforce of the country, but as the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg says, the figure runs at twice that national average in the creative industries, rising to 70% in the visual arts and 80% for musicians. Indeed, freelancers are often described as the backbone of the arts landscape. For a number of reasons, this is a growing workforce, despite—or in some cases because of—the increasing difficulties for workers.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society. I rise to speak to Amendments 301 and 302, which aim to provide vital protections for freelance workers in the UK. It was a pleasure to hear the introductions from the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, who set the scene extremely effectively.
The common theme is that the Bill take steps to modernise employment law but risks leaving a significant segment of our workforce behind. As we have heard from both out initial speakers, the UK’s freelance workforce is a powerful engine of our economy and culture, particularly in the creative industries. As both illustrated, the number of self- employed is not only rising rapidly, reaching 1 million now in the creative industries; but the actual proportion of those engaged in the creative industries, representing 32% of jobs within the creative sector, is an extraordinary figure.
Despite their immense contribution, however, freelancers currently lack a single clear voice representing their interests to government. This absence has led to a decline in pay and conditions, with nearly two thirds of freelancers reporting low or unfair pay in their careers, and an overwhelming majority impacted by late payments. As the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, mentioned, the Covid-19 pandemic starkly exposed their vulnerabilities, highlighting a lack of security, unequal access to opportunities and inadequate basic safety nets. These three amendments specifically address those critical issues.
A fundamental problem is the lack of a consistent legal definition for freelancers. Freelancing is not the same as self-employment, and freelancers often operate through a mixture of engagements, blurring the lines of employment status. This ambiguity creates uncertainty and can inadvertently exclude them from rights.
Amendment 301 proposes to insert a new section into the Employment Rights Act 1996, providing a clear definition: a freelancer is an
“individual who is engaged to work by a company directly on flexible contracts, through their own company or through other companies on a short-term basis, and who is typically responsible for their own tax and national insurance contributions and is not entitled to the same employment rights as employees”.
I take the point of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, about sole traders, but this clarity is essential for effective policy-making and for freelancers themselves to understand their status and rights.
The amendment also empowers the Secretary of State to issue further guidance and to create an online tool to assist in determining freelancer status, adapting it as time goes on. Once we have a clear definition, we need a dedicated champion, and the noble Earl’s Amendment 287 proposes the establishment of an office of the freelance commissioner, to be led by an independent freelance commissioner appointed by the Secretary of State. This role, as he mentioned, has been overwhelmingly called for by voices across the sector, including my own Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society, Creative UK, the Federation of Small Businesses, Prospect and a host of other organisations to which he also referred.
The freelance commissioner would serve as a critical conduit between industry and government, providing expert knowledge and genuine oversight. The responsibilities are set out in the amendment, but, in effect, he or she would advocate for the needs of freelancers across all government departments; bridge the existing gap in representation, especially where councils such as the Creative Industries Council lack advocacy for individual artists or creatives; drive change in government and business, aiming to eradicate the red tape affecting freelancers; gather and analyse crucial data on the freelance workforce, with a focus on the creative industries; and improve government understanding of the employment issues facing freelancers.
Finally, to ensure that the commissioner’s role is embedded in government policy considerations, Amendment 302 introduces a duty on relevant government departments to consider the specific needs of the freelancer workforce when formulating new policies or regulations. Currently, freelancers are often left behind in government policy due to gaps in data and their irregular employment patterns. They are more susceptible to economic fluctuations and lack the fundamental protections that employees enjoy, such as sick pay, flexible working hours and parental rights.
This amendment would mandate that departments such as the Department for Business and Trade, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have due regard to freelancer circumstances. Crucially, it would also require those departments to consult with the freelance commissioner during the development of any such policies. This duty is vital to ensure that upcoming employment reforms are fit not only for more traditional forms of employment but for the self-employed and freelance workforce, thereby safeguarding the long-term success of industries such as the creative sector.
These three amendments, which seek a clear definition of a freelancer, the establishment of a dedicated freelance commissioner and a statutory duty on government to consider freelancers in policy-making, are interconnected and essential. They represent a fundamental recognition of the modern workforce and a commitment to creating a fairer, more secure environment for those who drive innovation, creativity and economic growth.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I apologise for being unable to here at the beginning of this debate despite having added my name to Amendment 287. I was stuck on the motorway for the last three hours. I absolutely support the amendment; it is an incredibly good measure. I hope that the Minister will listen kindly to my noble friend’s amendment and speech.
Baroness Caine of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 287 tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, which provides an opportunity to address a long-standing gap in protection for freelance workers. To illuminate that, I will focus on one area of specific concern: health and safety.
At least 70% of the production workforce in film and TV operates on non-permanent contracts. Technically classified as “self-employed”, they do not meet the standard definition of autonomous self-employment. Current laws surrounding health and safety at work are often open to interpretation by those on productions who hire them, and, in some productions, a culture of minimum compliance becomes compounded by an industry that tends to self-regulate. Freelancers often do not raise safety concerns or request reasonable adjustments to the work they are doing, as they fear gaining a reputation for being difficult in highly networked industries where word of mouth is a powerful currency.
To illuminate that further, let me turn to a tragedy raised in this place last February by my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon—the now Leader of the House—while in opposition, during a very well received debate led by my noble friend Lord Bragg on the contribution of the arts to the UK economy and society. She referenced the work of the Mark Milsome Foundation, a campaign established following the tragic workplace death of this highly respected and experienced camera operator on a film set in 2017. At the inquest on Mark’s death, the coroner concluded that, on that set,
“the risk of Mr Milsome being harmed or fatally injured was not effectively recognised, assessed, communicated or managed”.
Despite these findings, no one has ever been held accountable, suggesting a gap or flaw in the law that needs to be filled or rectified, affording freelance employees the same safety rights, benefits and policies as others in employment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Caine. She made some terribly important points; they are literally about matters of life and death.
I have added my name to Amendment 259, alongside the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. I apologise to the noble Earl for not having also signed Amendment 287; I certainly would have done so, had I caught up with it sooner. I previously backed a similar amendment from the noble Earl to an earlier Bill under the previous Government.
I declare my position as beneficiary of the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society, with which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is associated. I published one book with the society last year, and I have another one coming out this year.
Amendment 259 is about unionisation and collective bargaining in the arts and cultural sector, and it calls for alternative, appropriate models for the sector. I hope the Labour Government see sense and come back in support of the amendment. They believe—I hope—in the values of collective bargaining and of workers being able to get together to fight for appropriate conditions, whether it is health and safety, pay or work security.
I declare another position—or, perhaps, a situation—in that, 20 years ago, I reviewed a lot of London fringe theatre on my own website. Speaking to some of the actors and the other creatives involved in those performances, I learned that the conditions under which they were employed, or hoped to get paid, were often very precarious. I very much doubt that that situation has improved.
The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, spoke about the insecurity of Covid and what followed it. The Republic of Ireland saw that situation and took a step to deal with it: it introduced the universal basic income trial, which ran from 2022-24 and paid creative workers a weekly stipend of €325 for three years. We still have not had the formal impact assessment of that, but I have heard a great many anecdotal reports about the more stability and reduced stress for creative workers. Realised from anxiety, they had time and headspace to open up new possibilities and create trajectories. They spent time researching, experimenting and taking risks and really saw the benefits in their creative practice. What we are proposing here is not going as far as a universal basic income but is a collective bargaining approach that strengthens the position of creative workers within their sectors and organisations, particularly freelancers. This would surely be a positive step at least heading in that direction.
Finally, it might feel as if we are addressing something that has been an issue for a very long time. There is a very famous painting called the “Poor Poet”, done in three versions by the German painter Carl Spitzweg. It shows a garret room with a leaking roof. There is no fire or bed, only a mattress on the floor, and the poet is tucked underneath every bed covering because he cannot afford to heat his room. That has been a long-term stereotype, but it does not mean we have to continue that.
More practically, in the reality of Britain in 2025, many people cannot even manage to access conditions such as that. There is a real issue—and no one else has brought this up yet—about access to the creative sector being open to a wide variety of people from a wide variety of groups in our society, not just to people who can access the bank of mum and dad when things go a bit wrong and can afford to work as an unpaid intern for years. If we are going to have a creative sector that truly harnesses the talents of all our society, opens opportunities and—if I have to put it this way—is great for the economy, then surely all the amendments in the group, but particularly the amendments on collective bargaining and the freelance commissioner, would take us some steps down that road?
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I address Amendment 287 on the creation of an office for a freelance commissioner in the name of my noble friends Lord Clancarty, Lord Freyberg and Lord Colville of Culross, who has managed to beat our limited motorway system but arrived just too late to speak, sadly.
I am somewhat conflicted about this thought-provoking amendment, in that I have argued at Second Reading and in Committee against the overreach of the Bill and its sheer complexity and burden on employers, especially for small and micro businesses. On the noble Baroness’s comment, I do not want to be seen to be adding baubles to the Christmas tree. However, I agree that year by year the arguments grow for the establishment of a freelance commissioner, partly because the number of freelancers is growing and will continue to do so. The current 2 million plus freelancers will easily rise to 3 million within the next 10 years in the UK alone as employers shed staff from payroll, weighed down by the combination of increased national insurance contributions, national minimum wages increasing much faster than the rate of inflation and all the new rules and regulations coming in this very Employment Rights Bill.
Just look at the recent and alarming drop reported last week by the ONS of 274,000 workers coming off payroll during the past 12 months. We do not yet have the data to track how many of them are transitioning to freelance or self-employment. Indeed, as my noble friends have pointed out, the data on this area of freelancing and self-employment is poor and not up to international standards, and that is a real problem when we are trying to assess exactly what their contribution is to the economy.
I am going to muddy the water slightly, but you could argue that there is a need for an independent commissioner for the self-employed. We have been talking about freelancers, but there are 4.2 million self-employed people, including freelancers, in the UK. Those numbers are going to increase given the impact of technology, digital communications, AI and, particularly, the practice of working from home. I accept that there are key differences between freelancers and many self-employed people, for example, sole traders or those running their own businesses or partnerships, perhaps with just one or two contractors, but freelancers, although independent and project-based, are also self-employed and are treated just the same way for tax purposes by HMRC.
I accept that freelancers and the self-employed are not as valued or appreciated by Governments of all parties as they should be. This was brutally exposed during the pandemic with furlough and other schemes. If we want to develop a proper entrepreneurial spirit and environment in this country, we should do much more to value and look after those who create their own jobs and face up to all the risks and jeopardy that that involves. That includes freelancers, not just in the creative industries, but in other sectors where they are prevalent, which are as diverse as construction, professional services and agriculture. The Government need to give Amendment 287 serious consideration and, while doing so, think through how the interests of all the self-employed, not just freelancers, should be represented.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Freyberg, Lord Clancarty and, particularly, Lord Clement-Jones, for their valuable contributions and amendments in this group and for the thoughtful way they have introduced them. I am very grateful for their tireless advocacy on behalf of the freelance workforce, who so often find themselves on the margins of employment policy. I will speak in particular to Amendments 301 and 302, tabled the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, which I was happy to sign.
Amendment 301 introduces a new clause which, for the first time in statute, provides a clear and much-needed definition of a freelancer. This definition acknowledges the reality of modern working life, where individuals are often engaged on short-term contracts, operating through their own companies or via intermediaries and managing their own tax and national insurance affairs. These individuals, who are distinct from employees or workers as defined under current legislation, are nonetheless a vital and growing component of our labour market, as the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, has just pointed out. The amendment does not seek to blur the lines between employment statuses, but rather to draw a necessary and clarifying distinction that enables policy and legislation to recognise freelancers in their own right. The inclusion of the provision for the Secretary of State to issue guidance ensures that the definition can evolve with working practices and case law, and that is both sensible and future-proofed.
Amendment 302 builds on this by creating a duty—a statutory obligation—for relevant government departments to have due regard to the freelancer workforce when shaping new policy. Too often freelancers are treated as an afterthought, and they fall between the cracks of legislation designed for binary employment categories. This amendment seeks to correct that omission. It ensures that the realities of freelance working are considered proactively in policy design, not reactively after the damage has been done.
Furthermore, the amendment ensures that the freelance commissioner, a role established to advocate for and advise on matters affecting freelancers, is appropriately consulted in the policy-making process. That is a modest yet essential safeguard to ensure that expertise is brought to bear when policies may significantly affect freelance professionals, particularly in sectors such as the creative industries, technology and media, where freelancing is not the exception but the norm.
These are thoughtful and proportionate amendments. They do not create undue bureaucracy, nor do they entrench rigid definitions. They offer clarity, fairness, and recognition to a workforce that contributes enormously to our economy and cultural life, yet is often unprotected and unheard in legislative terms. These proposals are not about privileging one form of work over another. They are about ensuring that our legal and regulatory frameworks reflect the diversity of modern work. I commend the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and his cosignatories on bringing these matters before the Committee, and I urge the Government to give serious consideration to these amendments as practical and principled improvements to the Bill.
I will take this opportunity to speak more broadly regarding the wider group of amendments concerning the impact of this legislation on freelancers and the cultural and creative sectors. Amendment 285 proposes a temporary waiver for small and independent cultural organisations in financial hardship. This is a pragmatic and compassionate measure. We all support robust employment protections, but a one-size-fits-all rollout risks devastating unintended consequences: closures, lay-offs or the collapse of small institutions that are already on the financial brink. The idea of a grace period and progressive enforcement is a proportionate way of balancing worker protections with organisational survival.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Freyberg and Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, for tabling their amendments, all concerning the creative and cultural sectors. I am pleased to be having this debate on how this important sector is being supported by the Government and how workers within the sector will benefit from the Bill. I pay tribute particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for his excellent and long-standing work in this area. I think it is fair to say that he is a creative inspiration to us all in his endeavours to support this very important sector.
The Government share this passion and certainly understand the importance of this sector. I draw attention to the significant work that we are already doing to support it. These sectors—creative and cultural—are a vital source of growth. Creative industries are estimated to have contributed £124 billion in 2023, accounting for 5.2% of UK gross value added, and the cultural sector is estimated to have contributed some further £35 billion in the same year, accounting for 1.5% of UK GVA.
The creative industries and cultural sectors are a distinct part of the wider UK workforce, as the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, explained. They have a significantly higher proportion of self-employed individuals, reflecting the sector’s entrepreneurial and freelance nature. In the latest published data, as of 2023 there were 2.4 million filled jobs in the creative industries and 666,000 filled jobs in the cultural sector. Of these jobs, nearly half, 49.6% in the cultural sector, were self-employed, and 27.9% in the creative industries, compared with 14.5% of UK jobs overall. This flexibility not only drives innovation but supports the more project-driven nature of the creative industries. However, we also know that freelancers’ creative careers, despite offering a more flexible and autonomous way of working, are often precarious and come with lower job security; many speakers in this debate spoke to that fact. I highlight the contribution made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, setting out the precarious nature of working in this sector.
I turn specifically to Amendment 259 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. Through the Bill we are introducing the school support staff negotiating body and introducing a framework for negotiating bodies in the social care sector to help tackle recruitment and retention issues there. The Government recognise that other sectors, such as the arts and culture sector, may well benefit from more formal frameworks for collective bargaining, and we intend to consider other sectors in due course. In the meantime, we want to encourage collective bargaining at the local level in these sectors. It is the Government’s intention that we should learn the lessons from this process in the social care sector first, before considering where it may be appropriate to introduce similar frameworks in other sectors.
I am struck at this point by the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough. As he said, while the focus of these amendments is to discuss the nature of freelancing in the creative and cultural sectors, freelancers are self-employed but of course there are self-employed workers in many other sectors beyond. It is not a simple thing to analyse, that is for sure.
Regarding Amendments 284 and 288, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, regarding impact assessments, as your Lordships’ Committee will be aware, we have already published a comprehensive set of impact assessments. This analysis is based on the best available evidence on the sectors likely to be affected by these measures, including the arts, entertainment and recreation industries. We recognise the importance of ensuring that the impacts of these policies on workers, businesses and the economy are considered, and that analysis is published outlining this. That is in section 17 of the summary impact assessment, which assesses the impact on all different sectors, including the creative industries. We already intend to publish further analysis, in the form of both an enactment impact assessment when the Bill secures Royal Assent and further assessments when we consult on proposed regulations to meet our better regulation requirements. We are also committed to consulting with businesses and workers ahead of setting out secondary legislation, including the sector mentioned in the amendment.
On Amendments 285 and 331 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, we recognise the importance of preserving and supporting the financial sustainability of cultural organisations, including small and independent cultural organisations. However, we want to avoid uncertainty or even unintended negative consequences for cultural workers. We welcome views on the ways that cultural organisations experiencing financial hardship can be supported, including the types of advice that they may require on employment practices. More generally, the Government will continue to work with the creative and cultural sector to understand how this legislation can work with it in its context, while strengthening legal protections for employers. But again, this must not lead to uncertainty or negative consequences for the workforce, which we believe staged implementation, for example, would create. I think the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, will know that both DBT and DCMS have been engaging with sector organisations, including UK Theatre, to have productive conversations to support this sector in understanding and adapting to the new legislation, while considering what additional support we could give to this sector in particular.
Finally, I address Amendments 286 and 287 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and Amendments 301 and 302 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, regarding freelancers. Freelancers may benefit from the reforms to trade union legislation and improvements in the enforcement system, including the regulation of umbrella companies. We have also committed to additional measures to strengthen protections for the self-employed. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, rightly raised issues facing those who are self-employed, such as action to tackle late payments. We have already announced a package of measures to tackle late payments to small businesses and the self-employed, including a new fair payment code, upcoming legislation requiring large companies to include payment performance in their annual reports and an upcoming consultation on potential measures to go further. Other measures to strengthen protections for the self-employed include the right to a written contract, an extension of health and safety, and blacklisting protections.
On health and safety, my noble friend Lady Caine of Kentish Town raised the honourable campaigning work of the Mark Milsome Foundation, in a speech that showed both passion and insight in this area. It is essential that employers in the creative industries do not use—or rather, abuse—the multifarious employment statuses of those working in the sector to evade their responsibilities, particularly when it comes to health and safety. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, it can indeed be a matter of life and death.
I am pleased that my noble friend Lady Caine acknowledges that this Bill may not be the most appropriate vehicle for the changes that she wishes to secure and that secondary legislation or amendments to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act would perhaps be more appropriate. However, I am happy to take this back to colleagues in DBT and DCMS.
As has been noted, the creative industries have a high proportion of freelance workers, who are crucial to the sector’s success. To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and others, the sector is working to address the recommendations of the Good Work Review, a deep dive into the working practices in the creative industries, which highlighted freelancers’ job quality as a particular concern. My colleagues in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport are working with industry to understand government’s role in any solutions that are developed. I and my DCMS colleagues will be happy to continue discussing how best to support freelancers, and the creative industries more widely. It is with this in mind, and the Government’s unwavering support for the creative industries, performing arts and entertainment sectors, that I ask the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, to withdraw Amendment 259.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has noticed the strength of feeling across the House in terms of support for some of the freelance amendments. I very much appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, said earlier. However, across the Benches there is very strong support for further protection for freelancers. Will one of the options in the Good Work Review, which the Minister referred to, be the appointment of a freelance commissioner—with all the other aspects that I have mentioned in terms of definition and duties?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I was certainly happy to reflect that there was cross-party agreement on this. I am unable to recall the exact terms of the Good Work Review here, so I undertake to write to the noble Lord with some more detail if that is acceptable.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
Perhaps the Minister could add another bell or whistle to what he has just said. Will he undertake to meet those with a strong interest in the protection of freelancers on a cross-party basis, to have discussions, before Report?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I am always happy to meet with noble Lords on these important matters.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very helpful answer and all noble Lords who have taken part in today’s very interesting and in-depth discussion that I think we have all valued and benefited from.
I will make a couple of observations. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, made a very powerful point about the lack of government representation from freelancers when he said there was not then and there is not now any clear channel between freelancers and government. I do agree with the points made by many noble Lords about this. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, talked about having a freelance commissioner for advocacy and driving change. We need more work on this, because it is not clear that freelancers are getting the type of direction that the Government need to give on this.
I was struck by the very powerful speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Caine, on the concerns about health and safety in the film industry. Again, a freelance commissioner would be able to look at this in more detail and drive that through. There does not seem to be the same powerful advocate without that, so I hope the Minister will consider how to strengthen that. The noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, made a powerful speech about the number of freelancers who are going to come into this area; therefore, not to have them represented in this Bill is an oversight.
When I was anticipating what the Minister would say, I had various things down: asking for a carve-out, asking for special treatment for one sector, phased implementation is a slippery slope, oversight already exists through Arts Council England and DCMS, there is not enough evidence to justify these changes and we already have a Minister for Culture. However, as others have rightly said, this is not about a carve-out or an exemption, it is about adaption. The creative workforce is structurally different, highly freelance, project-based and often dependent on public and charitable funding. Our amendments aim to ensure that employment rights can be applied fairly and effectively in this context.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“Impact on industrial action (1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, publish an independent assessment of the impact of this Act on the number of working days lost to strike action.(2) The assessment must include data comparing the number of working days lost to strike action in the 12 months following the passing of this Act with the 12 months prior.(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the assessment before Parliament.”
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 262 concerns an issue of considerable importance, not merely for those involved directly in industrial relations but for the health of our broader economy, the stability of our public services and the legitimacy of this legislation. The amendment would require the Government to commission and publish, within 12 months of Royal Assent, an independent assessment of the impact of this Act on the number of working days lost to strike action, specifically comparing the 12 months following its enactment with the 12 months preceding it. That report would then have to be laid before Parliament. This amendment is modest in scope. It does not seek to obstruct the Bill or alter its provisions. It merely seeks transparency, accountability and, above all, vital evidence-based analysis in due course.
There is a striking—if I may use that word without inflaming the debate—absence of hard data or persuasive analysis in support of the central justification for these changes, namely that repealing certain elements of the Trade Union Act 2016 will result in better industrial relations. Indeed, the Government’s own impact assessment acknowledges that there could be a benefit
“if Trade Union reforms lead to better industrial relations”.
I emphasise “if”. Hope is not a good substitute for policy. Nor should legislation of this consequence be built on assumptions rather than analysis. I will therefore structure my remarks around three core questions which the Government have failed to answer convincingly and which this amendment would help to address.
If we are to repeal elements of the 2016 Act, we must first understand what standard the Government are using to declare that Act a failure, or at the very least to assert that it is no longer fit for purpose. The Trade Union Act 2016 introduced significant changes: minimum turnout thresholds for strike ballots; requirements for information on ballot papers; limits on picketing; and restrictions on facility time in the public sector. It was controversial, certainly, but it was also justified by the Government of the time as necessary to ensure that industrial action had a strong democratic legitimacy, and that the wider public were protected from excessive disruption.
Now we are told that these measures must be rolled back, but we have at no stage been told what objective, or even subjective, measure of success or failure is being applied. Are we to believe that the 2016 Act failed because it did not eliminate all industrial action, because it was unpopular with some stakeholders or because it placed an administrative burden on unions—or, more worryingly, is it being repealed simply as a matter of political preference? To look at some figures, according to the Office for National Statistics, the number of working days lost to strike action was at a historic low throughout the period following the 2016 Act until a sharp rise in 2022-23, partly driven by inflation, the consequential erosion of real-terms pay and broader discontent in the traditional public sector.
Are we being told the legislation was ineffective because strikes still happened in 2022? If so, that ignores the very different macroeconomic context we now face. Or is the claim simply that industrial relations will somehow improve if these legal constraints are lifted? In any of those cases we must ask: compared with what? Compared with the pre-2016 environment? Compared with our European neighbours? Or compared with a model of workplace consensus that may not exist in reality? Without a baseline for comparison, the Government’s argument is essentially unfalsifiable and unjustifiable.
Let us assume for the sake of argument that the Government believe that these changes will lead to more equitable bargaining, greater union engagement and ultimately improved relations between employers and workers. Even if that were true, we must still ask at what cost. If these reforms lead to a rise in industrial action, that will have implications not only for the affected sectors but for the public at large. Trains will be cancelled, schools will be closed, hospital appointments will be postponed, bin collections will be missed and courts will be adjourned. These are not abstract costs, so it is extraordinary to repeal a major piece of industrial relations legislation without offering any quantification of the risks of increased disruption and without explaining how those risks will be mitigated.
The impact assessment leans heavily on the idea that increased union involvement could lead to improved communication and better outcomes, and perhaps it could. But the fact remains that the cost of getting this wrong will be borne not by policymakers but by the public. That is why this amendment is so crucial. It simply asks the Government to return to Parliament within a year and tell us whether this has worked. Has industrial action decreased or increased? Are we seeing the promised harmony or the feared escalation? If it is the latter, we as legislators have a responsibility to know that and to act accordingly.
Perhaps the most fundamental question of all is: what actual, empirical, verifiable evidence do the Government have to support their central claim? We have not been given a retrospective analysis of the Trade Union Act 2016 and its impact. We have not been provided with consultation data that robustly supports repeal. We have not seen sector-by-sector breakdowns of how these measures will improve the industrial landscape. We have not even seen clear articulation of the problem the Bill is trying to solve. Indeed, the rationale appears to be more ideological than evidential. It seems to be based on the belief that loosening legal constraints will somehow foster good will and reduce conflict. All the academic research and literature on industrial relations remind us that legal frameworks matter, that institutions shape behaviour, and that rules, when clear, consistent and fairly applied, help prevent conflict and not exacerbate it.
If the Government are so confident in their position, why not test it? Why not commit to measuring its effect? Why not, a year on, lay before this House and the other place an honest assessment of whether their theory of change has delivered the desired result? If the evidence proves them right, they will be vindicated. If not, Parliament should be empowered to revisit the legislation. There is, after all, considerable flexibility inherent in legislation so riddled with Henry VIII powers. I look forward to the Minister’s reply and I beg to move.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 262 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and others, because I want to talk about a simple economic truth. One of the provisions in the Bill will reduce the thresholds at which industrial action may be called or authorised. The truth is that when you reduce the threshold, the likelihood of industrial action does not grow linearly; it grows exponentially. The amendment is needed because the Bill, sadly, will provide the world with a real-life experiment that will inform political and economic science of that simple truth.
It could be worse than that. My experience comes from local government and my relationship with the National Joint Council. Local government employs 1.8 million local government workers. There are three principal unions: Unite, UNISON and GMB. Within the cohort of local government workers, I have negotiated with the craft workers, the Salisbury workers and the coroners. There is a red book, a green book and a blue book; there is even a gold book covering senior fire officers and police officers. There are 136 different activities that local authorities do and, of course, there are 350 principal councils. I have engaged with all this complexity over about 10 years sitting on the National Joint Council, the device through which the employers engage with the unions. I have sat alongside the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, on that body for many years, and now we both find ourselves in here.
As part of the gang of four, the top four local government councillors engaged in these important negotiations, I have learned a lot of things. There is less beer, there are fewer sandwiches and there are palatial premises built by one of the unions in Euston. It has not been easy work, but we have had a series of national agreements engaging on a respectful basis. It has been valuable work. The important point is that there have been powerful incentives to avoid industrial action. The bar has not been impossible, but it has been a high bar against which strike action must be called. It has sort of worked, because there has been an equilibrium between the employer and the employees across 1.8 million unionised workers —just under a third of them all—in this country.
That equilibrium has meant that when there is a strike, it is serious. When people down tools, it is in the news. The Birmingham bin strike is a case in point: there is a strike, and it is serious. My anxiety about so many of the provisions in the Bill is that it is going to dissolve the powerful incentives to avoid industrial action and instead, arithmetically and structurally, put in the provisions where it is encouraged. The Bill sets the wrong balance, because we are not talking about simple organisations with single unions and small workforces in local government. We are talking about a very complex landscape. If you reduce the thresholds, people are more likely to strike because a minority, as little as 10%, of workers could call a strike. When 10% hold the 90% over a barrel, that is clearly not in the interests of the public; it is not in the interests of the workers; and I do not believe that in the long term it is in the interests of the unions.
Amendment 262 calls for a robust assessment of the effect of the Bill on days lost to industrial action. Not only is that the right thing to do but we would do a service, because it would demonstrate once and for all that simple efficiency of labour relations: if you reduce the threshold to call industrial action, the number of days lost to strikes will go up geometrically. I regret that we are going to do a service to political and economic science, but if that is the way it is, Amendment 262 is the way to achieve it.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Sharpe’s amendment to ask for an impact assessment that details the number of days lost to strikes in the 12 months since the Act was passed and in the previous 12 months. He spoke about the repeal of elements of the 2016 Act and about the ONS statistics.
Part of the reason why we need an impact assessment on the number of days lost to strikes is because, as my noble friend said, we have no evidence. This Bill, in particular aspects of Part 4, is likely to increase the number of strike days. I say that because the main problem with many of these clauses is that they undermine the balance between the employer and the employee, which my noble friend Lord Fuller spoke about as both a public sector and private sector employer. They remove the arrangements on a number of accounts which allow for a balance to be struck between the interests of employer and employee, and for agreement to be reached.
The clauses also remove the inducements and encouragements to avoid industrial action. We spoke earlier about Clause 73, on protection against detriment for taking industrial action: new Section 236A gives workers the right not to be subject to detriment as a result of official and protected industrial action and stipulates that an employer may not take action, and may not refrain from an action, to prevent the employee engaging in legitimate industrial or protected action. Yet excluding the employer’s ability to give inducements to workers for not taking protected industrial action where others do, is in fact prohibiting actions by the employer to hold back or to encourage workers not to take such action. One example might be to offer a bonus or withhold some extra benefit.
There are very good reasons to avoid strikes, not least for the good of the whole economy and the good of this country. Employers and employees should be given a level playing field, and many of the measures taken by the previous Government since 2016 and before then, all of which are in the 1992 Act, allow for that level balance to be struck between both parties. But many of these measures will encourage industrial action, which is not to the good of workers, employers or to the country at large. An impact assessment would at least provide the evidence that the country so badly needs if we are to start putting pressure on the Government to restore the balance in this delicate arrangement between both parties.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, for their contributions. I will be brief; I do not want to stand between noble Lords and their dinner break.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for his Amendment 262. We have already debated impact assessments at great length and I will not repeat the same arguments. Any industrial action is regrettable and all parties have a duty to seek a resolution to such disputes. Failure to do so is basically a lack of management and leadership by all. We have also debated the repeal of the 2016 Act in previous debates. I will not mention that either. Furthermore, it is a manifesto commitment.
Despite its good intentions, the amendment would impose a review procedure that in effect repeats what the Government already intend to do. We recognise the importance of ensuring that the impacts of these policies on workers, business and the economy are considered, and that analysis assessing these impacts is published. Our impact assessment also outlines a plan for monitoring and evaluating the impact of the Bill and subsequent secondary legislation.
As noble Lords will see from the impact assessment, our Employment Rights Bill could have a positive direct impact on economic growth, helping to support the Government’s mission for growth and ensuring that we raise living standards across the country and create opportunities for all. The Bill is expected to benefit people in some of the most deprived areas of the country by saving them up to £600 in lost income from the hidden costs of insecure work.
To conclude, I reassure your Lordships that we already have robust plans in place to assess and review the Bill’s impacts, including on industrial action. My commitment in an earlier debate to meet noble Lords to discuss the impact assessment further still stands. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, to withdraw Amendment 262.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Leong, for his answer, but I am, of course, disappointed. I must say to him that of course he could not repeat the argument about the impact assessment because it is manifestly inadequate and overreliant on the word “could”, which he just used again.
So it is with a sense of frustration that I close this debate on Amendment 262 because, let us be blunt, the Regulatory Policy Committee has already deemed the Government’s own analysis inadequate. It found that the assessment underpinning this Bill failed to consider important variables, lacked robust modelling of strike-related costs and omitted any real evaluation of how the repeal of the 2016 Act provisions might drive up the number of working days lost to industrial action. That is criticism born not of political bias but of technical expert judgment, but the Government persist in asserting that an independent stocktake of actual strike days would be superfluous.
During the Bill’s passage, no fewer than 160 government amendments were tabled on Report, some of the most consequential of which would fundamentally alter the trade union landscape: changes to ballot thresholds, as my noble friend Lord Fuller explained; adjustments to picketing rules; and alterations to facility time arrangements. Many came late, with scant time for meaningful consultation and no accompanying update to the impact assessment. In effect, we are being asked to sign off on a statute the final shape of which was revealed only in piecemeal fashion and for which no comprehensive evaluation has ever been produced. There is more flesh on the skeleton now, but it still makes for a pretty unsavoury sight.
The consequences of this are already evident. Businesses stand in limbo. They are unsure how to prepare—again, the lack of an implementation plan. HR directors, legal advisers and finance teams are all left guessing which rules will apply. If the Government can point to a single one who is not, could they please say so, because we have spoken to very many and cannot find a single one who is not left guessing? They require clarity, not uncertainty. They need to know, for instance, whether a union ballot will again require a 50% turnout, or whether the conduct of pickets will be governed by new or old prescriptions. In their absence, investment decisions are deferred, retention and, especially, recruitment strategies are on hold and the workforce, unsure of its rights and obligations, faces unnecessary anxiety.
To deny acceptance of this amendment is to deny the very notion that policy should be tested against outcomes and treats legislation as unchallengeable, rather than a living instrument whose impacts must be monitored, and it tells employers, workers and the public alike that we legislate in the dark. So I regret deeply that the Government have chosen to reject the amendment. Doing so signals a reluctance to subject themselves to the discipline of evidence, shirks the responsibility to measure the real-world consequences of their own handiwork, and turns a blind eye to the limbo in which businesses and the public languish. That is not acceptable. If the Government’s reforms truly will deliver better industrial relations, they should welcome the chance to prove it. If Ministers are as confident as they claim to be, let them fast-track the assessment. Let them demonstrate that strike days are falling, that workplaces are more harmonious and that public services are protected. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move that the House resumes. We will then move on to consider two Foreign Office Statements taken in the other place. In recognition that the Statements have been combined, the usual channels have agreed that the usual time for consideration be extended by 20 minutes, with 40 minutes for Back-Bench questions in total. We will therefore not return to the Employment Rights Bill before 8.38 pm.