Lords Chamber

Tuesday 10th June 2025

(began 1 day, 2 hours ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:37
None Portrait Oral questions: Reducing delays for taking a driving test
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, first My Lords, first Western, My Lords, first Western, Lord Young of Cookham.
14:37
14:38
14:39
14:40
14:40
14:41
14:42
14:43
14:44
14:45
14:45
14:47
14:48
14:48
14:49
14:50
14:51
14:52
14:52
14:53
14:55
14:55
14:56
14:57
14:58
14:58
14:59
15:00
15:00
15:02
15:02
15:02
15:03
15:04
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:11
None Portrait Oral questions: Review of section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 to ensure freedom of religion and belief in the United Kingdom
-

Fourth Oral Questions. Order Paper and outline my interest as declared in the register. as declared in the register.
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:20
15:21
15:21
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
We have given and we are in discussion with the police and the College of Policing and the chief constable's Council, the very issue the noble Baroness has made. That has come out of the number of cases since the general election which have been brought to our attention where we believe the police should be taking action to investigate crimes, but they should also be proportionate in what they do in relation to the way in which the crime is brought to their attention and make a decision on that.

I have been clear at the despatch box on several occasions that the police need to examine the approach to the nonprime hate incidents clearly and I believe the police will be issuing guidance in due course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That concludes Oral Questions for today. Any members who wish to leave We We now We now come We now come to...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think I am in order. We now come to previously debated in Grand come to previously debated in Grand Committee, Criminal Justice Act 1988 Committee, Criminal Justice Act 1988 offensive weapons, order and for other motions.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

other motions. With the leave of the House I beg to move the motion in my name on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to move the motion in my name on the order paper and I hope en bloc. The question is that five motions in the name of Lord Hanson be agreed to en bloc.
15:24
None Portrait Business of the House
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

to en bloc. I wish to make two points with regards to these measures we debated regards to these measures we debated last week in Grand Committee, I gave notice I would make a couple of remarks, the first is that these measures relate to the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme which is a significant legislative tool to seek to prevent countries from political interference within the UK. There is cross-party support within these, for these, and we passed them during the National Security Act.

The measure of these that gives me concern is the area of exemptions to the scheme that the government has introduced in one of these measures. We know that many countries seek to influence the UK through education arrangements and through the use of sovereign wealth funds. We debated this during the passage of the National Security Bill. I specifically raised these issues, including the use of sovereign wealth funds. We also know through warnings by the director- general of MI5 that they are used on an epic scale by China.

It is the government's choice, it is its own discretion, not to put China on the enhanced tier of this scheme. What the exemption measure introduced by the government will mean is that education and sovereign wealth funds are exempted almost in their entirety from the scheme. I am not seeking to divide the House because the conservative Front Bench have supported these exemptions. It will be for it to explain why. But I believe that this is an error. The second quick point I want to make is that the Minister, in his characteristic way, listened to the debate and undertook to write to me and others, raised concerns in advance of today.

He honoured that commitment, we received a letter yesterday. I thank him. No doubt he was working on the Sunday. And I thank his officials for the comprehensive letter which was supplied with the annex of explanations. I remain unsatisfied with the explanations of the Minister acts with respect to this House and sincerity and I want to thank him for his commitment to replying to me. In his letter to me the Minister says that as it is a new scheme, it will be under review and there will be an annual report.

I say sincerely to the Minister that I believe the government is making an error with the exemptions would I respect the Minister and for the explanations he has given and I look forward to further opportunities to raise these concerns as the scheme is implemented. To the notice of the honourable Lord gave to my colleagues and that whips office he would raise these matters. The five orders before the House, for relate to Iran and Russia, one relates to ninja swords and a ban on ninja swords, it was all moved on block.

Ninja sword ban I hope is broad agreement across the House. The four matters he referred to relate to Iran and Russia. If I may defend myself with this order, I did take his interventions and give further explanation in committee, and I did agree to write to him and the noble Lord, which I do over the weekend, to clarify further the reasons why the government has taken the view the government has taken. For the benefit of the House, the sovereign wealth fund political tier extension has been targeted to ensure it does not provide a loophole for foreign powers to channel political influence and evade the scheme.

The vast majority of work done by sovereign wealth funds would fall out of the political influence tier and the exemption will only apply if the fund is directed by its home state to carry out political influence relating to its investment. I do relating to its investment. I do think it is very tightly drawn. With relation to the funding study arrangement, the exemption ensures the scheme does not unnecessarily deter international students from studying in the UK. I know the Liberal Democrats want to have international students come and study in the United Kingdom.

We discussed this with student bodies and university institutions. We do and university institutions. We do not consider it necessary to apply that first scheme to international students whose activities are purely related to their course of study. But if, for example, the international student was being directed by the Russians or the Iranians to carry out wider duties over and above their studies, they would be liable to register. Someone who comes to study but is actually working for the Iranians or Russians has to register.

If it becomes known afterwards that they have not registered, they will be liable for a five year prison sentence. I think the noble Lord, I understand the points he has made, but I hope I have satisfied him. You mentioned have satisfied him. You mentioned two other points that I want to touch on, first of all, the review. We keep this under review at all times. There will be an annual report, the scheme operates from July 1 onwards, we will have an annual report.

Ministers will ensure the scheme meets its objectives because our objectives is to stop Russian and Iranian influence. You mentioned China, we keep all regimes other than Russia and Iran, which have tabled in this motion, under review, if they cross the threshold the government has concerns about an action will be taken. We brought these measures because the Russian state and the Iranian state are a severe threat to this nation to individuals residing in this nation, both UK individuals and nations from foreign-based states who are in this country as well.

The first scheme is designed to put measures in place and we would not be putting those in place if we believe there were loopholes for which those two countries could slip between. I hope I have answered, as I thought I had done in committee on Thursday, over several hours on Thursday, and I hope I have answered today. I hope I have answered today. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. Third reading of the sentencing deadlines presentence report builder, Lord Timpson.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move that this bill be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now read a third time. The question is that the Bill be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the Bill be now read a third time. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contents have it. My Lords, I beg to move that this bill does now pass. My Lords, I wish bill does now pass. My Lords, I wish to pay tribute. I would like to start by paying tribute to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

start by paying tribute to the chairman of the sentencing Council. The question is that this bill be now passed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I apologise to noble Lords, this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I apologise to noble Lords, this is the first time I have taken a bill to its third reading. My Lords, bill to its third reading. My Lords, I begged him that this bill does now pass. I wish to start by paying tribute to tribute of the council, tribute to tribute of the council, Lord Justice Bill Davies, after the sad news that he passed away at the weekend. He made a significant contribution to criminal disc and I would like to particularly recognise would like to particularly recognise his work serving on the council, first as a judicial member between 2012 and 2015, and then as its 2012 and 2015, and then as its chairman since 2022.

The honourable lady Chief Justice recalled yesterday as one of the very best yesterday as one of the very best criminal judges of his generation and IM conscious that many noble and learned Lords that have known or worked closely with him and I want to take this opportunity on behalf of the House to extend our deep condolences to Lady Davies and the children and all those that knew him. I would also like to take this opportunity to extend my thanks to the main noble Lords having contributed to debates in this House on this bill.

Despite its short length it has punted careful and detailed consideration from members of this House and IM grateful to noble Lords who have, throughout its passage, provided a constructive challenge. I am also grateful to the officials involved in the preparation and passage. The opposition front bench particularly the noble Lords Sandhurst and Lord Wolfson have engaged constructively on the bill for which I am grateful. I would also like to pay particular thanks to the Noble Lord marks on the noble and learned Lord Burnett and the noble Baroness family and the Right Reverend Pollitt of Gloucester who have all been Gloucester who have all been In both their scrutiny of the bill and in their engagement with me.

Finally, I would like to thank the team that have supported me on this bill, particularly Catherine, James

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and Jack. I very grateful. I beg to move. My Lords, first of all I would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, first of all I would like to add my note of sadness at the news of the death of Lord the news of the death of Lord Justice William Davies recently. And to add my condolences to that of the to add my condolences to that of the Noble Lord the Minister and to his family upon his passing. He was a family upon his passing. He was a judge of great distinction and he led the Sentencing Council which was the subject of this bill.

With very the subject of this bill. With very great distinction as well and he will be greatly missed. And turning will be greatly missed. And turning to the bill now we made it clear that we did not agree with the bill that we did not agree with the bill or with the principal or the proposed guidelines of the sentencing Council threatening the sentencing Council threatening the notion of equality before the law. We believed, as it is clear, that this was not a sensible use of emergency legislation, and that the disagreement between the Sentencing Council and the Lord Chancellor should have been resolved without the need for legislation.

And we were concerned about the way in which the bill had the potential to damage the Sentencing Council, however, in the event that we did not succeed in securing withdrawal of the bill or amending the bill support, so it would now become the law. However, we can take to very strong positives from the debate
15:35
15:37
15:37
15:37
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar Portrait Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, may I also begin by paying tribute to the late Lord Justice William Davies. We learned of his death over the weekend with deep sadness, his integrity, clarity of thought, and unwavering of thought, and unwavering commitment to fairness makes him a towering figure in the field of criminal and his loss will be felt across the entire legal and judicial communities, although most immediately by his family to whom we send sincere condolences. May I from these benches express our thanks to all those who have contributed to this debate and to this bill, rather, during committee and report stage.

The quality of that debate was exemplary, echoing and always meeting the higher standards that the House always sets when dealing in particular with matters of Criminal Justice Act with the expertise we have around the chamber on all sides. From these benches, we do offer our support for the principles which underpin this legislation and that more effective use of presentence reports will encourage informed judicial discretion and will also lead to better sentencing outcomes, reducing reoffending, encouraging ability evaluation and serving the interests of public safety and while this bill therefore is a very good first step, we do look forward, together with other noble Lords around the chamber, to other initiatives in this area, sentencing remains a complex and sensitive area of the law because it touches both individual lives and also the life of the community, so we believe that this bill provides a strong foundation and we are confident it will be implemented to good effect.

We therefore support the bill and look forward to being implemented as part of a justice system which is fairer, more consistent, and also more effective. And can I finally, however, end on a more personal note. The Noble Lord the Minister had noted when he stood up that this was the first bill that he has taken to the House and can I make a note of agreement with the Noble Lord that we may disagree politically, but on these benches we recognise that the Noble Lord not only shares a commitment to a fair and modern Criminal Justice Act system but also has practical experience in this area and, where possible we will, of course, constructively together in the future as we did on this bill.

the future as we did on this bill.
15:40
15:41
Lord Burnett of Maldon Portrait Lord Burnett of Maldon (Crossbench)
-
-
He did so smilingly, he did so always with good-humoured. He will always with good-humoured. He will be much missed. May I also associate myself with the words of the noble Lords who have paid tribute to the Noble Lord the Minister for the way in which this legislation has been piloted through Parliament. I say that despite personally not considering that it was necessary and followed the firing of the and followed the firing of the letter from the Chancellor at the first whiff of political short that first whiff of political short that we are where we are, and I would we are where we are, and I would particularly like to thank the Minister, if I may, and his team, for their personal courtesy that for their personal courtesy that they showed me in discussing a number of issues that arose over the course of the bill, it is perhaps a pity that the Government accepted no amendments in the end from any Noble Lord, but I entirely understand the political imperative for that and, like others, I congratulate the Noble Lord the Minister if that is not thought to be impertinent on the way in which he has conducted this bill and, more generally, on his debut in this House.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Minister has an opportunity to reply.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. The question is that this bill due now past. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The
15:42
15:43
Baroness Stedman-Scott Portrait Baroness Stedman-Scott (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise today with a sense of relief, but not without regret. Relief that the Government has chosen to reverse a policy that has caused distress and fear amongst our oldest and most vulnerable citizens, and regret that such a policy was ever assumed in the first place. This reversal gives us cause to reflect on the true value of the winter fuel for pensioners on modest incomes, it has never been a luxury, but it has supported the most vulnerable through the darkest and coldest months of the year will stop while we welcome the government's decision to U-turn, we must not Lucite of how we came to this point.

In December of last year, I saw that this Dispatch Box and I want the Noble Lord the Minister about the very consequences we are now discussing. At the time I made it clear and I reiterate today that withdrawing the winter fuel payment for all but a limited group of recipients dealt a serious and unjust below to millions of people across the country. We made our position clear from the outset, the Government was wrong to scrap the Winter Fuel Payments for millions of vulnerable pensioners.

We, on these benches, will oppose the policy of the three key principles. First, it would have left millions of older people worse off during the coldest months of the year. Secondly, it reflected a misplaced set of priorities favouring above inflation, pair arises, for public sector workers over the needs of those in later life, and, third, it was introduced without transparency with no reference to such a significant change during the general election campaign. We urge the Government to listen to the concerns raised across the House and to consider alternative approaches to fiscal responsibility, ones that do not come at the expense of those who can least afford it.

This House raised those concerns and reminded the Noble Lord the Minister of the Conservative record on support for pensioners with the lock, the warm discount, and the Winter Fuel Payments itself. As Churchill once remarked, a man does not change his mind cannot change anything. As we rightly warned last year, removing the winter for payment was an appalling blow for pensioners. Today, the Government has done the honourable thing. It has listened, it has reflected, and it has acted. Admitting a mistake is never easy, but correcting one is a mark of leadership.

On this occasion, the Government finally listen to your Lordships house. This is a taste of things to come. They will listen to the serious concerns we are raising on the most damaging elements of their policy platform. Will they rollback on those parts of the Employment Rights Bill? Which will devastate small and medium-sized Will they hold their assault on the Schools in our country in the Schools Bill? It is not only welcome, it is essential. Reaffirms our commitment to pensioners who depend on the support and upholds the integrity of our social contract with those who have worked hard and paid taxes all of their life.

Let this moment serve that the voices of the vulnerable must be heard, fairness must not be sacrificed for short-term savings, and dignity is not negotiable. It is deeply regrettable this reversal was necessary, the original decision was ill-conceived and caused needless For some of the most vulnerable in society. We are entitled to ask how it is being paid for. The government has said the U-turn will cost around 1.25 billion and if the economic outlook is not materially improved, as the Chancellor's own figures suggest, then where is this money coming from? Our tax rises now on the table? If so, which taxes and on whom? Will the noble Lord the Minister confirm whether His Majesty is Treasury intends to raise revenue through stealth taxes or whether further departmental budgets will be cut elsewhere to fund the reversal? What of the administrative burden? What of the administrative burden? Will pensioners with incomes above 35,000, particularly those with non-taxable income, be required to complete tax returns? What guidance will be issued to those who may find themselves unexpectedly caught in a new reporting requirement? Will the noble Lord the Minister explain how a pensioner who is widowed and inherits the pension, find themselves with an income over 35,000? What happens to them? This House has a duty to speak out when the vulnerable are at risk and today we have fulfilled that duty.

The government has listened but we must remain vigilant. To the millions of pensioners left in uncertainty this past winter, you were heard. And to the government, let this be a reminder that the strength of a society is measured not by how it treats the powerful, but how it cares for the vulnerable. Whilst we welcome this change of heart, we do need to understand how the government has suddenly found the money to pay for it. In the end, the savings achieved by this policy may be as little as 50 million.

Will the noble Lord the Minister tell the House whether it has been worth all of the pain and aggravation? Will he apologise now to the millions of pensioners who struggle to get by this winter? this winter?
15:49
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Portrait Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
This surely must be the government of unintended consequences. When it was first muted, I said to the honourable lady the Minister, was there going to be any financial gain because with the further uptake in Pension Credit, the actual money saved is very minuscule, nothing like what the government said it would get. So we have gone through all of this pain and people have suffered all for a strange bit of ideology. There are reports in the media, I want to follow on what the noble Lady said from the Conservative benches, there are reports in the media suggesting Winter Fuel Payments will be made automatically as a universal benefit this winter.

And that money will be reclaimed when higher income pensioners fill in their tax returns. Can I ask the noble Lord the Minister how the government will ensure that the new system does not mean that bereaved families of tens of thousands of dead pensioners, not only widows, but dead pensioners, will be pursued by tax officials to recoup payments? The government of unintended consequences strikes again. Will they acknowledge the failure of this policy, thanks to sustained efforts of the Liberal Democrats and others, the scale of distress created must not be forgotten.

Does the government intend to operate the £35,000 threshold with inflation in future years? This has been a disastrous piece of policy. It has not raised the money it was intended, we were told it was going to raise. And there is further distressed on the line while this mess is trying to be sorted out.
15:51
Lord Livermore Portrait Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
-
I am grateful to the Baroness, Baroness Stedman-Scott, and others for their comments. Baroness Stedman-Scott welcomed the change in policy, I'm grateful to her, I'm grateful to both noble Lords for the consensus I think there exist across the House in terms of the policy position we now have. The RNS started by asking how we got here, when we came into office we did have to make some urgent decisions to put their public finances back onto a firm footing.

That did involve us taking some very difficult decisions on welfare, tax and spending. Including these testing the Winter Fuel Payment. We have now, as she noted, listen to the concerns about the level of means testing. I'm grateful to her for noting we had listened to that, to the concerns that have been raised around this House and outside of this House. I'm just trying to read my writing... She asked about the savings that will be generated from this policy, as she rightly said, we expect this policy to cost around £1.5 billion a year in total, £1.25 billion in England and by the end of the forecast period.

She asked about the savings this would generate, estimated to save around £450 million a year compared to universal winter payments. She asked about when it would be paid for and how it will be paid for. We are setting out changes now to ensure more pensioners are able to receive support this winter and I think that is the right thing to do. There is now just one fiscal event a year. All of these changes will be fully funded, at the budget in the autumn.

Ensuring that final costings and funding decisions, alongside a full That fiscal rules are met at all times. She asked about other policies we are pursuing, I think it was appropriate that the head of tomorrow Spending Review she reminded us that the party opposite has not supported a single one of the policies we have put in place to stabilise the public finances or to raise money for the Public Services. When we have tomorrow Spending Review and here from the party opposite now supporting all the spending we are doing, they did not support a single one of the difficult measures that we took to raise money for the Public Services.

It is interesting that she approached the employer rights bill. They do not support a single measure to improve the lives of working to improve the lives of working She asked about the tax system, no additional pensioner will be brought into the tax system as a result of the change. I think we can give that assurance to the House today. The noble Lord asked a question about recouping payments from deceased people. HMRC have established processes in place to re-keep payments and finalise the tax affairs of deceased people.

Nothing will change as a result of this. If this is the only outstanding tax charge from this deceased person, HMRC will not pursue anyone just for the specific amount of money. He also asked about whether or not we would operate the threshold -- uprate the threshold of £35,000. We will set that out at the time. will set that out at the time.
15:55
15:55
15:56
15:58
15:58
15:59
15:59
16:00
16:00
16:01
16:01
16:02
16:02
16:03
16:04
16:05
16:05
16:06
16:06
16:06
16:07
16:08
16:08
16:09
16:09
16:10
16:10
16:10
16:11
16:11
Lord Young of Norwood Green Portrait Lord Young of Norwood Green (Labour)
-
-
I will look and discuss it with my Noble Friend as well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I would perhaps take a slightly different view and of slightly different view and of course I welcome people being able to get their winter for payments. to get their winter for payments. Still applying the Pension Credit which is absolutely right. People which is absolutely right. People like myself and I Everybody in this like myself and I Everybody in this House who got the Winter Fuel Payment, I do not know what everyone else did, but I donated mentor charity.

I certainly did not need charity. I certainly did not need that £300, so there was a team like myself. If I have a concern about a myself. If I have a concern about a Government policy, it is that first of all nobody seems to recognise of all nobody seems to recognise that it is actually pensioners that it is actually pensioners benefiting very well out of this. No, I do not agree, actually, with the triple lock. I may be in the minority, but I do not because I think that money could be used as people have rightly said in alleviating child and, to me, that is probably one of the biggest challenges that we face.

I am not expecting the Minister to give an about turn on that one, just making a comment. And when we go for the triple lock there is a cost and it is actually quite expensive cost, so as we know, tomorrow we will be hearing the Chancellor make it known how she is going to balance that. I welcome the fact that people on Pension Credit, we wanted those to claim Pension Credit and would be able to get their winter fable payments, so, of course, in that respect I think this is good.

Only one area of concern that I have expressed. expressed.
16:13
16:13
16:14
16:14
16:15
16:16
None Portrait Legislation: Employment Rights Bill - committee stage (day 8) - part one
-

operations and infection control or not compromised by well-intentioned but potentially disruptive physical access to hospital environment by trade union representatives. Hospitals are not ordinary workplaces, they are places where critical decisions are made every minute, vulnerable patients receive life-saving care and medical professionals must operate in conditions that are tightly controlled in terms of hygiene and procedure. Permitting physical access to union representatives not part of the clinical team are not governed by the same professional or ethical codes introduces risks which cannot be ignored.

These are not theoretical concerns. Infection control protocols exist because hospitals deal daily with immunocompromised patients, open surgical wounds and the spread of dangerous pathogens. Entry by any individual not trained in and individual not trained in and accountable to those controls could result in spread of disease and harm. Small delays or distractions can have life or death consequences. The presence of non-essential personnel in these places risks delaying clinical teams, delaying movement corridors or interfering with time critical procedures.

Physical access is not just a logistical matter, can threaten the hospital's ability to function safely and effectively. The amendment does not seek to deny trade unions to communicate with members or deny their functions. It prevents access where it can be by other means, virtual communications, designated liaison officers, scheduled engagement in non- clinical areas will be viable for meaningful trade union engagement. Hospitals are under enormous pressure, it is neither safe nor fair to expect them to open their most sensitive environments when the same objectives can be achieved by safer, more appropriate methods.
16:19
16:20
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
words printed on the marshalled

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Lord for his amendments. I hope perhaps the lack amendments. I hope perhaps the lack of contributions, we will make some good progress in committee today. good progress in committee today. Noises from the secretary position, Noises from the secretary position, I think in numerical terms is not an in substantive debate. I thank Lord in substantive debate. I thank Lord Sharpe of Epsom for tabling the Sharpe of Epsom for tabling the amendment which, as he has outlined, seeks to make specific provisions for accessing hospital workplaces, specifying where access has been specifying where access has been refused, and requires more weight to these factors when deciding access.

these factors when deciding access. As we discussed in the last group of amendments at the last committee sitting last week, the Secretary of State will be able to set through regulations the circumstances in which the CAC must take into account when making a decision on access, including with regard to potentially complex arrangements in hospitals, in workplaces, such as hospitals, and other healthcare settings. These areas of detail will be subject to public consultation before the regulations are made and invite all interested parties to provide us with their views on these matters when we launch our consultation.

It is a complex policy area and will involve detailed practical considerations. It is not as if at the moment we do not have strong and healthy trade union engagement in all healthcare settings, including hospitals, from a number of different trade unions. This is not unprecedented, having trade union access and involvement and activity in complex workplaces, including in hospitals where there is special consideration for people who have, there is obviously importance of keeping hospital sterile and safe for those who particularly have immunocompromised conditions, anyone who has a patient in that setting.

This can be achieved, can be achieved and is reasonable for that CAC to make regulations that set this. It is not as if, this is not a policy area that is already one well rehearsed and understood. Well Lord Sharpe is right, hospitals are particular settings, they are also workplaces, the NHS employs a large number of people, it has immature industrial relations framework within the NHS and it is not implausible that in consultation with all interested parties could not come to a reasonable compromise to access.

We would add that the government feels it is not appropriate to make specific provisions for just this one workplace, hospital workplaces prior to consultation. Hospital workplaces as opposed to general practitioners or dental surgeries, other areas where you have regard to clinical safety and these sorts of considerations that the noble Lord talked about. Given that, I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
16:24
16:25
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
not moved. The question is clause 56 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content." Of the contrary, "Not content." The contents have it. After clause 56,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment 215, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, oh, Lord Hunt. I rise to speak to amendments 215 and 332, standing in my name and the and 332, standing in my name and the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom. These amendments insert a right for trade amendments insert a right for trade union members to switch off, to ignore contact from union representatives outside their own representatives outside their own working hours. Let me, at the outset, be absolutely clear, this is not something that we on these not something that we on these benches see as an unimportant, nice to have option, it is a necessary to have option, it is a necessary safeguard in the context of the bill which is probably doing more than which is probably doing more than any legislation in living memory to grant privileges to trade unions, inflate union power and will encourage aggressive recruitment, regardless of what the workers wanted.

This amendment goes to the very heart of the deeper question we have to ask ourselves in this House, whom is the trade union there to serve? The worker or itself? This bill, if we are honest, increasingly seems more interested in empowering the institution than in protecting the individual. This bill tilts the playing field, not towards workers as individuals, but union structures as institutions. It does so with no meaningful safeguard, no checks and balances and no regard for the fact that many workers today want something very different to what the traditional trade union model is capable of offering.

This bill is not neutral. It is not balanced, it is not simply updating outdated frameworks or modernising collective bargaining. I believe it is a deliberate attempt to revive old school trade unionism in a school trade unionism in a dramatically changed industrial context, by granting unions, not just at rights, but privileges, whether the workers wanted or not, through expanded access rights, new entitlements and a raft of concessions, the government is artificially breathing life into organisations that are no longer representative of most working by making them more attractive, but by giving them more power.

We know what happens when institutions are giving -- given power and not accountability, they use it and abuse it. This is in response to the risk that says clearly and unapologetically, even if the government wants to empower unions, individual workers should still be able to set boundaries, especially in their own time. Because the pressure that comes from union representatives is not always welcome. It is certainly not always proportionate. Especially under the new powers granted by this bill. I'm sure we are going to see a rise in out of hours messaging, pushers and late-night emails.

WhatsApped group bombardments, friendly reminders to attend meetings or urgent invitations to back a ballot. Because unions will be under pressure themselves to prove their relevance, to grow their numbers and mobilise more quickly and visibly than ever. The burden of that spurious urgency will fall on the ordinary member, often the reluctant member, who will have joined the union for protection, not politics, who just wants to do their job and get on with their life. That member deserves a basic right, the right to draw a line.

This amendment gives them that right. It says outside your working hours you cannot be expected to respond to union communications, not because you are hostile to unions, not because you're trying to undermine solidarity, but because your time is your own. And because respect for the individual must come before the individual must come before The government may argue that it did not receive with the broader right to switch off with workers, because it would have conflicted with the right to reasonable notice from employers.

That very reasoning exposes why this amendment is necessary. If the switch off had been applied to employer, employee relations, then it would have conflicted with the right to reasonable notice in part one of the bill. There is no emergency that demands a union rep should chase members after hours. It's a question of political pressure, not practical necessity. Distinction matters, because unions are not employers, they are not paying wages. They are not assigning shifts or running the business.

They are voluntary organisations. Or at least, they should be. And voluntary means members must be free to choose how and when they engage, not pestered at home, pressured properly into supporting or joining campaigns. Or bombarded with demands for their time. This amendment sets a clear limit, it says if you are union member, you cannot be treated as on-call. Round-the-clock, a union business. You cannot be treated like a resource to be endlessly tapped for activism, modernise, mobilisation, or messaging.

If you want to engage, you can, if you do not, you are protected. I believe that is especially important now. Because the very structure of this bill encourages union representatives to behave like middle managers. It creates incentives to prove their influence, to boost visibility, and show results. That inevitably leads to unwanted contact. Without this amendment, members would have no legal right to say stop, not now, not outside of work. My Lords, I believe the freedom of association also implies a freedom not to associate.

The right to join a union is protected. So too is the right not to be engaged when you do not wish to be. Or when your contractual obligations have ended for the day. I believe if we fail to respect that boundary, we risk turning a voluntary association into a mandatory presence. Ever present, ever talking, and ultimately overbearing. In the end, this is all about respecting modern working people, people who are busy, over connected, and already managing the pressures of work, family, and life.

They don't need another stream of obligations following them home, and invited from organisations that claim to represent them, but often pursue political priorities far removed from their own. If unions are to be relevant in the 21st- century, they must learn engagement and they have to learn it, not demand it. This amendment ensures that engagement remains a choice. That is what real solidarity looks like. Freedom to act, and freedom to opt out. I urge colleagues on all sides of the House to support this amendment, not to weaken unions, but to protect workers.

Because after all, this is what employment rights. So, I urge the House to adopt this amendment, to put the rights of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ordinary worker before and ahead of the machinery of union politics. I beg to move. Amendment proposed, after clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, after clause 56, insert the new clause as printed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on the Marshalled list. I rise briefly to speak to amendment 205 and 232, from Lord
16:35
Lord Goddard of Stockport Portrait Lord Goddard of Stockport (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
amendment 205 and 232, from Lord Sharpe. The new clause to grant union members the statutory right to switch off and disengage from contact initiated by union representatives. I think it raises the wider question of worklife balance and members autonomy. I don't think that is a bad thing to actually raise and are probing this amendment. Lord Hunt's caricature of a typical union member is a little fanciful, back when I was a strop steward, I certainly wouldn't ring up union members at 8 o'clock when England were playing football.

I got a short shift and properly wouldn't be the shop steward the following week. Unions can remove shop stewards at women. I think we need to be a little grown-up, I'm a modern trade unions nest because we are living in a different age now, communications, yes, it would be different now, but Communications Act via text and WhatsApp. -- Communications are via text and WhatsApp, that is acceptable to do. I think it is round about giving people the statutory right to switch off or not, and this is down to individual members to decide whether they want to be able to be contacted or not.

It is for the member himself deciphered, rather than the statutory rights you have to do that. It is not for me to pass judgement on the desirability of a knot, but to understand the ministers rationale at the need for Is a more technical nature, providing the commencement of these provisions a year after the act receives Royal Assent. This delays implementation, and may allow for guidance to be prepared or foreign institution to adapt. With that in mind, I would like to Minister's response to both of these things, bearing in mind that, at the end of the day, trade unions exist because of the members.

And if members don't like the trade union, they can leave a trade union, at that point has , you are free and able to join or leave a trade union. And I know, talking about 1973-74, people did leave the GMB union over some policies, the policies the union had. It is not an impossible thing to do, but they are still treated fairly and given a full consultation, and it was up for us to persuade them to come back to the union which they nine times out of 10 did.

But, it is for the Conservatives to understand that, unions controlled by members, we have annual congresses and one of the greatest things we see doing the Lancashire which is to overturn the executive once a year in conferences, that was the object of the conference, and it didn't go well with John Edmonds of the senior management team, and I would stand there berating them for the poor pay of gas workers, and then objects to a 2% pay rise, and get full support, and then have to go see Mr Edmonds, the words he once said to me was, you control this union for one week, we control the union for the other 51 weeks.

So I will let you have this week, David. Now leave. And I deleted any words unfit for this House. Again, it is a balancing act, do hope the Minister will address it in that manner, and not just ignore amendments coming from the opposite, there is something behind the amendment, these are probing amendments and we are trying to get a flavour of where you sit in regards to membership and the unions, with regard to consultation, because we spent a few hours, the other night, a lot of hours, talking about union rights and members rights.

And I think this just touches on the end of that. I see why it wasn't in that group, but it is still something I think that needs explaining a bit clearer. And key. -- Thank you. key. -- Thank you.
16:39
Lord Leong Portrait Lord Leong (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, firstly, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for his very entertaining contribution. And Lord Hunt of Wirral, for speaking to amendment 215 and 342, table by Lord Sharpe and the noble Lord himself. These clauses will create the right primary legislation for trade union members to switch off from contact from a trade union representative. As far as I am aware, there is not any demands to introduce such a requirement on trade unions. I have not heard this from colleagues, or from trade union members or from any worker, or indeed from any employer, or employer organisations that I have spoken to lately.

It is difficult to see what benefit or purpose such an obligation inserted into membership contracts might serve. Currently, my Lords, there is no obligation for trade union members to reply to communications from the trade union. Ably set up by Lord Goddard. And there is nothing stopping a member from ignoring them or telling them to... Off. This government is committed to the well-being and positive work and life balance of all workers. The employment rights bill is proof of this commitment.

And relevant measures includes making fixable working the default, except where not reasonably feasible. This will help employees and employers to agree solutions that work for both parties. My Lords, may I also politely say to the noble Lord Hunt, I disagree with his allegation that the interview with people's life, because it is as it stands, every member can tell whoever who has approached them outside of work, to ignore the messages, Communications Act all of that. There is no evidence, as it stands, that this is comedy happening.

So, my Lords, I would ask the noble Lord to perhaps reflect on this, and be pretty careful with some harsh words that he just said. So, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment, 215.
16:41
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I will just say to the noble Lord the Minister, that he has to face the reality of the situation, when looking at today's world. When trade unions only represent 12%, 12% of the private sector. Our in union membership. So, therefore, when he tells the House it is not necessary now, we are, though, go to enter a new era for it is one that I recall vividly, when I first came into the House of Commons, just under 50 years ago, when the trade unions dominated when the trade unions dominated lives, to be huge extent.

And I sent certainly talking to some of my friends in the trade union movement, they look forward to the day when the trade unions will re-emerge in the private sector. When they will become, again, dominant in public life. So I was also very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, of Stockport, in talking about worklife balance. That is really what it is all about, and I'm rather sad that the noble Lord, the Minister committed to really get into worklife balance -- Didn't really get into worklife balance, that is what this is all about.

Lord Goddard of Stockport, sharing with us his experiences in the GMB, and I have, in the past, done a lot of cases for the GMB. And they are a wonderful friendly society, and look after people in a huge way, so it was good he put that in context, but what I'm concerned about, this amendment is not ideological, it wasn't radical, it wouldn't weaken unions, it wouldn't restrict bargaining, or impose new administrative burdens on trade unions. All this amendment, and the subsequent amendment, do is to offer trade union members the right, the dignity, to say, not now, not after hours, not in my living room, not when I'm at home, off duty, and seeking the same privacy and peace of mind that every working person deserves.

So, we are looking forward to the day, or are we, if these new provisions give additional power to unions in the bill, why doesn't the government just stop for a moment to ask how will this affect ordinary members? Not union leaders, not officials, not full-time organisers, but the actual members who just want to get on with their lives in peace. That is what this amendment is about. Not disruption, not dilutions, but balance. I fully accept that many of them complain about contact from a union, but not because they agree, it's because almost certainly, they will be tired, because they don't want confrontation, they worry that pushing back could lead to exclusion, being isolated within the very structure they join for protection.

So, I just ask the government again what defence does the individual member have against that kind of constant pressure. If their message repeatedly, by a -- If they are message repeatedly buyer represented of late into the evening, what course do they have? HR? Do they raise a grievance? No. Is there a formal process to complain, no. Now, thanks to the government's decision today they won't even have the right in law simply to say I am off duty, leave me alone.

So, let's be clear what this means in practice. If you are a union member that once protection, particularly in the case of a dispute, but doesn't want to attend meetings, join picket lines or read emails late into the night, this government's message to you is, tough, you signed up and if the union wants to chase you on a Sunday evening, there is nothing in law to stop them. That's not support her working people, that's legislative codification of a political monopoly, one where union structures are protected, promoted, and made permanent.

But where individual members are slowly deprived of the right to define the terms of their right to define the terms of their So, I don't believe we need to choose between representation and rest. I believe the future of industrial relations depends not on bigger structures but on mutual respect, including respect for people's time, their privacy, and their right to acquire life. It is all about getting the worklife balance right. So, I do reserve the right, my right, to come back to this issue at the report stage, but the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
16:48
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
withdraw the amendment. It seeks to insert a new clause following new clause 56. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult Secretary of State to consult stakeholders for trade unions on the use of digital communication methods use of digital communication methods as part of trade agreements. Furthermore, it will require that Furthermore, it will require that the outcome of that consultation be published and the benefit may not come into force until that has come into force until that has happened.

Let me say that this is a moderate, practical and entirely moderate, practical and entirely necessary amendment. It does not challenge the principle of union access. It does not frustrate the core intent of the legislation, but what it does is inject degree of what it does is inject degree of rigour and consent that it risks unintended harm to employers and unintended harm to employers and ploy ease like. I thought they were eliminating and concerning because the noble Lord assured us that the government intends to consult further on digital provisions.

But the government has allowed this to come into course and before any regulations are laid, so in effect, this house is being asked to pass a framework of legal obligations that have real word consequences to digital systems without knowing the rules that will underpin them. This is legislation in reverse because it allows payment first, critical definitions later. Let us take the noble Lord cats words directly. He said the precise details of how this will work in practice will be set out in second reading during further consultation, the secondary legislation, as we have discussed many times, is not subject to the same scrutiny as primary legislation.

It is not amendable. They can be laid quietly through Negative procedure's, and that is why we must build consultation obligation directly into the primary legislation because without it, we leave employers and small and employers exposed obligations they neither understand nor had the opportunity to influence. The noble Lord acknowledge the digital access were not included in the original drafting of the bill, so it was not debated during the Commons Committee stage. It was inserted at a late stage in the legislative process.

And when pressed on this, the Lord could offer no rationale behind that late change. Instead, we were told that access would not include digital channels as fanciful. The noble Lords words. That may well be the case but policy made on assumptions and generalities is not good policy. What will digital access mean in practice? Will unions be able to emailing employees directly? What about workplace intranet? Would be able to share content details or act as intermediaries with materials? What safeguards will protect information in small fares that operate on a shared system? Lord Lee also raised a point, that we are looking at allowing 1/3 person to access employees computers without any controls, references or parameters.

That is not mere rhetoric. That is a credible reading of the bill in its current form, and if that is not the government's intent, and we need clarity in law, not just reassurance from the despatch boxes laws cats try to deflect this by pointing to data protection legislation, but as many of this house noting well, data protection laws regulate the use of personal data and not govern rights and trade union law, nor did they address the centre of concern here, mainly that employees and unions need to find rules of engagement for digital contact in the context of access rights.

The government's apparent position is that all this can be worked out later. That is simply not acceptable. When legislation interferes with the operation of businesses, the integrity of secure systems and the balance of power between employers and unions is not enough to say trust us to sort it out in regulations. Let me also address the claim that consultation will happen eventually, and we welcome that promise, but good process means consulting before rules take effect, not after. It means asking what is reasonable before forcing them to comply, and that is all this amendment does.

It requires that the Secretary of State consult regular holdings and employers. The outcome is published in the interest of transparency and trust, and that the relative part cannot come into force until that is done. That gives everyone fair notice. It ensures meaningful engagement and prevents a scenario we are hurting towards which is the system access rights can be composed with digital access and any shared understanding of what that entails. Access must be delivered in a way that is workable, proportionate, and appropriate in each workplace context.

In many work places, it is the most effective route, but in some environments, it also represents of an ability for the operations and data security,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and I beg to move. Inserts the consultation requirement on the Marshall list.
16:53
16:54
16:55
16:56
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

57 stay as part of the bill. I rise to move the two

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to move the two amendments, clause 57 stand part and amendments, clause 57 stand part and schedule six stand part in the name of my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough. And I also rise to speak in support of my amendment to schedule six page 218 line 22, which proposes inserting the words other than in the usual course of the employers business after units, and of course, this is all part of a much wider debate that we are now moving towards one trade union access and recognition.

This amendment may appear narrower in scope, but I believe it addresses a serious flaw in the current drafting, one that could leave to unintended consequences that undermine both the objectives of the bill and the practical realities of the modern workplace. The purpose of the provision, as drafted, is to prevent employers from undermining trade union recognition by artificially inflating the size of a bargaining unit with new employees after the application of day. That objective is entirely so.

Employers should not be able to frustrate or delay the process of recognition by manipulating the workforce in bad faith. While the provision seeks to target such behaviour, the current wording does so in a way that ignores the economic and operational realities facing most employers. In the vast majority of businesses, employees join and leave as a matter of course. Recruitment is not a manipulative tactic but a normal and essential part of running an organisation, particularly in sectors with high turnover.

They must respond to demand or support growth, but under the clauses currently working, any new employee who joins the bargaining limit after the application date will automatically be excluded from consideration. Regardless of whether that was completely ordinary and unconnected to the union process. This creates a perverse incentive for employers to delay or freeze hiring joining the process. Something that may last nine months or more in practice. Employers would be put in an impossible position, either pause recruitment at economic cost or continue recruiting and face the uncertainty of whether those employees count in the CAC consideration.

It also risks unjustly who, through no fault of their own, would be deprived of representation in the collective bargaining process because of the timing of their hire. This kind of rigidity does not reflect how businesses operate or how workforces evolve. The clause without amendment assumes a static picture of the workplace, one frozen at the moment of application. That might make theoretical sense in a static model, but in reality, it is artificial and unworkable. In doing so, it creates uncertainty for all parties and opens the door to protected disputes about who should or who should not be included in the bargaining unit.

Furthermore, the Central arbitration committee is already well equipped to monitor changes in workforce composition. It regularly requires updates to information throughout the recognition process. Employers and unions alike are accustomed to and unions alike are accustomed to The idea that including new routine employees in a unit would undermine the process. And it is not supported by the CAC's own established practice. The amendment therefore does not introduce an undue burden it aligns a legislation with how recognition procedures already work in practice.

There is also a broader principle at stake. If the clause remains unamended, it risks creating a two-tiered system within workplaces, where long-standing employees are eligible for representation but newer hires are not, through no fault of their own. That is not only administratively awkward but, well, it is normatively undesirable. The recognition process has to be fair and inclusive, not arbitrary and exclusionary. This amendment I believe strikes the necessary balance, it still guards against the mischief the government rightly wishes to avoid, namely bad faith efforts by employers to manipulate workforce composition, but it does so without impeding manager to mid and routine business activity.

-- Impeding on routine as this activity. Changes to the workforce are scrutinised, whilst preserving the freedom of employers to work normally and the rights of new employers to be included in the recognition process. So, I urge the government to consider its current drafting may have unintended consequences that would show ordinary recruitment, generate uncertainty, lead to dispute, and ultimately frustrate both employer operations and fairness for workers. This would provide a much-needed clarity and flexibility, whilst maintaining the integrity of the recognition process.

Turning to amendment 215 DA, this amendment it is a serious imbalance in the drafting of the bill and raises questions about what it really means to be pro-worker. The purpose of these provisions, we are told, is to prevent employers from subverting the trade union recognition process come by strategically recruiting new employees, after an application has been made. Now, that is a concern. And no one disputes the need to prevent bad faith conflict. Or conduct. However, in seeking to prevent one abuse, we must not create another.

As the bill as currently drafted, all new employers who join a proposed bargaining unit after the application, regardless of notable context, can be excluded from the process whether it be access rights or voting in the recognition ballot. This is not just a legalistic floor, surely it is a democratic one. Workers who may have joint through internal movement are still workers. They are doing the same jobs, under the same conditions, often in the same teams. So, they would, under this provision, be arbitrarily excluded from the process that will define how they are represented in the workplace.

If this is a pro-worker bill, then surely it has to be pro- all workers, not just those whose votes or presence are to support a particular outcome. To tell employers do not hire or transfer staff into this unit, join this process, or they will be treated as suspect. Is it to demand something that most cannot deliver without operational damage, and is it not the government's goal to boost employment? Of course, there is the issue of access. The bill is currently drafted to allow them to gain access to the workforce before there is agreement or determination and what the bargaining unit is.

I believe this is a major step. Access, particularly by external union officials, is not a trivial or frictionless matter, it disrupts business, introduces outside actors into internal operations, and may create tension or division. Especially when the scope of the proposed bargaining is where it is contested. I think what the government appears not to have considered is in seeking to insulate the process from employer manipulation, they have in fact exposed it to the opposite danger. One where the process can be manipulated by a union seeking to exclude or silence newly recruited or redeployed staff, simply because their votes may not advance a particular campaign.

That is not industrial democracy, that is electoral engineering. This amendment provides a principled and pragmatic fix. It predicts business activity, redeployment turnover, without allowing any employers to stuff the ballot. It recognises the CAC's ability to access and update workforce data over time, and would also ensure that when access is granted, it will be done on the basis of a defined and accepted bargaining unit, not speculation. Above all, it restores balance. If we are truly serious about giving workers a voice, then we must respect all workers voices, even those who joined last week.

Even those who may not support the union and even those whose presence may complicate a tidy narrative. Democracy in the workplace has to include dissenting voices, inconvenient views and late arrivals. Turning to amendment 216, this seeks to retain a critical safeguarding our statutory recognition scheme. That is a particular percentage of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit must support trade union recognition in the ballot, in addition to a simple majority of those voting. The government's current proposal, through subparagraphs three and four, of this schedule, seeks to remove the 40% threshold, effectively replacing it with a lower bar that only majority of votes cast, regardless of Turner, would suffice for recognition.

This threshold ensures that imposition of connective bargaining rights is based on clear and broad support from the entire workforce. Not just a motivated minority. It ensures that workers who are silent are not presumed to support recognition. In any democratic process, we have to distinguish between legitimate Mr -- Majority support, and apathy misinformation or disengagement. I imagine the workforce of 100 employees. Under the proposed changes, a ballot in which just 25 people vote, 13 in favour, and 12 against, would result in all 100 workers being subject to collective bargaining, by unions supported by just 13% of the workforce.

That surely cannot be right. That is not democracy, that's procedural opportunism. It is telling the government, I suppose, in many ways, government, I suppose, in many ways, we just want to stress that any decision, recognition, effects terms, conditions and the voice employees have in negotiations. It should not rest on a low turnout should not rest on a low turnout vote. I just want to turn, the underlying cause says the employer must refrain from threatening or taking action against a worker, simply because that worker has intended or expressed an intention to attend a relevant meeting between union and the workers forming a proposed bargaining union.

This is a well intention provision, to protect workers legitimate freedom of association, and engagement and union activities, principles that are rightly enshrined in both domestic and international labour frameworks. However, the amendment I am moving seeks to ensure that these protections do not become a shield for misconduct or contractual breach. The proposed wording I seek to insert a simple. Provided that in case of either or B, the workers have not breached any term of the contract of employment, the rationale is equally straightforward.

Workers rights must be protected, but so most employers, legitimate interest in maintaining workplace discipline and operational integrity. It would be wholly inappropriate for instance if a worker could invoke this provision to shield themselves from consequences, after walking off the job without notice, breaching confidentiality, or failing to comply with reasonable management instructions. Simply by saying they were going to, or had attended a union meeting. I believe we must avoid creating a situation, whether attendance at or interest in a union

**** Possible New Speaker ****

meeting becomes a free pass from for misconduct. I beg to move. The question is clause 57 stand as part of the bill, of which are as part of the bill, of which are number of amendments have been grouped.
17:11
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

grouped. My Lords,... Right, OK, I was trying to follow the argument of the trying to follow the argument of the noble Lord, I am therefore following it through all the amendments. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his keen interest in the amendments to clause 57, schedule six, and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for his opposition. I don't think into the opposition of the clause on the schedule, but I'm interested in his opposition. So, turning to the closes, which to strengthen collective bargaining and union recognition.

We believe strong trade unions are essential for tackling insecurity, inequality, discrimination, enforcement and low discrimination, enforcement and low pay. Our view is that the existing legal framework needs to be simplified, so that workers have security in the workplace. By having a more meaningful rights to organise through the trade unions. As we have heard to achieve this, this clause, and schedule six, remove the current requirement for a union to have at least 40% of the workforce in the proposed bargaining unit, supporting union recognition.

In future, unions will only need a simple majority, in a recognition ballot to win. The current requirement for a union to demonstrate at the application stage, that it is likely to be a majority, for union recognition, poses a significant hurdle in modern workplaces, which are increasingly fragmented. This is why this clause deletes the requirement for union to demonstrate an application to the CAC, that they are likely to win a recognition ballot. In future, unions will only need to show they have 10% membership of the proposed bargaining unit, for their application for recognition to be accepted by the CAC.

We also wish to consider whether the current 10% membership requirement on applications should be lowered in the future. This clause therefore provides the power to enable the Secretary of State to make affirmative legislations, which were consultant, to amend it in future, within parameters of 2% and 10%, as set out in subsection 10 of this clause. Clause 57, and schedule six, also addresses the unfair practices and arrangements in the process of recognition and derecognition of trade unions.

I hope this satisfies noble Lords who have been opposing this clause schedule, that these measures strengthen collective bargaining rights. Before I turn to noble Lord, Lord Sharpe's amendments to clause 57 and schedule six, it is worth noting that the government also tabled amendments through them. We will be debating these shortly and noble Lords may wish to consult on these amendments for the context of today's debates. Turning to the amendments to hundred 15 AZA, and 216, AB, which covers the usual clause of the employees business from the freeze on the bargaining unit provided for, in the bill, mild, this is a well-intentioned amendment, and indeed, we consulted on options, for a more targeted approach, to prevent mass recruitment into the bargaining unit, with the aim to thwart a recognition application.

However, after considering responses to the consultation, we concluded that a more targeted approach is not workable. As it would be difficult to establish a sufficient level of proof to determine the purpose for which workers have been recruited. In addition, a new obligation on employers to demonstrate their recruitment intent, would be a disproportionate and unfair burden, and could result in employers having to die. Sensitive information. -- Dive all potentially sensitive information. In some cases, it seeks to have the membership test command removes references in schedule six, that exclude workers, following receipt by the CAC of a trade union recognition application, from counting to the purposes of the recognition process.

I will set out my reasoning in relation to need a % membership threshold, and why we are including a power in this bill to allowed ministers to vary the 10% membership threshold from 10% to 2% in future, in the next debate. But schedule A1 should be consistent on a dispensable, and I will refer noble Lords to what I have said previously on this issue. I will also set out why we believe employers should no longer be able to recruit workers into the bargaining unit for the purpose of thwarting a trade union recognition application.

My Lords, I am steadfast that this reform is necessary, to ensure that process is fair, and must not be undermined by what could be underhand tactics. Turning to amendments to hundred 15 Turning to amendments to hundred 15 DA, 215 the sea, FA, FB, FC, FD, FE, DA, 215 the sea, FA, FB, FC, FD, FE, FF, FL, FI, HA, and this had been at a... Did I get that wrong? These amendments seek to delay when units would be able to request access to the recognition process.

Until after the bargaining unit had been agreed or determined. Whilst I understand the noble Lord is attempting, whilst I understand what the noble Lord is attempting to achieve with this amendment, employers have access to the workforce throughout the recognition process. The government's view is that unions should have access to the workplace as well from the point where the CAC accepts the application for This enables unions to have access to the workplace at the start of the recognition process.

Turning to amendments to 15 FG, FH, six GAA and 6MA, these seek to remove unfair precedents. They seek to allow employers or unions to make an outcome specific offer or use undue influence with a view to influencing the recognition application. These unfair practices are long-standing and already set out in the legislation currently enforced. The use of undue influence could include the threat or use of violence. We therefore seek no argument for removing these prohibitions on these unfair practices.

Turning to amendment 216, this seeks to reverse changes in the bill by reinstating the requirement that unions meet the 40% support threshold in addition to a majority recognition ballot. May I remind Lord's that this was the manifesto commitment set out clearly in our plan to make work pay. We are committed to strengthening trade union recognition. We believe that strong trade unions are essential for tackling insecurity, inequality, dissemination and low pay. Our view is that the existing legal framework needs to be simplified so that workers have a more meaningful right to organise through the trade unions.

To achieve this, we are removing the current requirement to have at least 40% of the workforce in the proposed bargaining unit supporting recognition. In future, unions will only need a recognition ballot to win. We believe that the 40% secure requires two high status and is fragmented. Turning to 61 a, this seeks to make sure that an employer is pivoted from taking action against a worker for indicating that they would like to meet during the statutory recognition process if the work has breached any term of their contract of employment.

The prohibition which this amendment seeks to amend is carried forward from the existing legislation where the proposed proviso about the work having not breached their contract does not appear, while well-intentioned, this amendment is not necessary. The prohibition only implies where the employer takes action against a worker solely or mainly on the grounds that they met with the union. It does not apply where the sole purpose is another reason which may in some circumstances be a breach of their contracts and employment.

I hope this provides the necessary reassure men to the noble Lord. I therefore thank noble Lord sharp and Lord Hunt for taping these amendments and I must ask the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord to amend these. I think we are very grateful to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think we are very grateful to the noble Baroness the Minister for the noble Baroness the Minister for revealing to the house that what we are discussing here is a fundamental are discussing here is a fundamental reshaping of workplace democracy with potentially profound consequences. She is right to explain that is what the government is about. Because the employment is about. Because the employment rights bill doesn't just tinker with existing procedures. It carefully dismantles the framework established by previous Labour governments.

Under these reforms, as the noble Baroness has just revealed, unions would need to demonstrate just 10% membership support to trigger recognition processes, and it is a threshold that regulations could reduce after consultation to an extraordinary 2%. Now, let me understand and let me explain to the house what this means in practice. In a bargaining unit of 250 employees, recognition could be initiated by as few as 25 members under the 10% threshold. Potentially just five members if reduced to 2%.

More troubling still, with the removal of the 40% support requirement, union recognition granting negotiating rights overall 250 employees could theoretically be achieved with a single one yes vote provided no one votes against. This is not hyperbole. This is mathematical reality under the proposed framework, and perhaps most concerning of all is that, as Minister acknowledged in the other place, there has been no consultation on these fundamental changes. We are asked to revolutionise industrial relations based on ideology rather than evidence.

Without hearing from employers, workers, or even the Central arbitration committee that must implement these provisions. must implement these provisions. This lack of consultation betrays a troubling disregard for the complexity of workplace relations and the legitimate interest of all parties, employers, workers who support unionisation and those who
17:24
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
do not. The amendments that I have been seeking to propose today are not antiunion but pro-democracy. not antiunion but pro-democracy. They recognise the collective They recognise the collective bargaining must rest on genuine demonstrable support from the workforce it claims to represent. workforce it claims to represent. The current proposal risk creating what I can only describe as a recognition by stealth, where small recognition by stealth, where small motivated groups can impose collective bargaining arrangements on the entire workforces without on the entire workforces without meaningful mandate.

It is not industrial democracy but the antithesis of it. Consider the worker who joins a company the day after a union application is filed. Under these proposals, they may be excluded from the very process that will determine their workplace representation. Consider 145 employees in my hypothetical bargaining unit who never joined a union, never voted, yet find themselves bound by collective agreements negotiated on their behalf by representatives they did not choose. Beyond democratic concerns lie practical ones.

The amendments that I have been trying to persuade the house to accept today recognises that businesses must continue to operate during recognition processes that could stretch over nine months. Routine recruitment, staff transfers, and ordinary business activities cannot be frozen pending union ballots without severe economic consequences, and yet the Bill as drafted forces exactly this choice. Suspend normal operations or face the uncertainty of having legitimate business decisions treated as manipulation. These reforms occur within a pattern of changes that consistently are favouring union interest over balanced workplace relations.

The lowering of thresholds, the removal of safeguards, the expansion of access rights, each individual change may seem modest, but collectively, they represent a fundamental shift in the balance of industrial relations, and this is particularly concerning given the government's stated commitment to economic growth. How can we simultaneously demand that businesses expand, hire, and invest while making their operations subject to collective bargaining arrangements that will lack genuine workforce support. The government workforce support. The government must bear in mind that we, from these benches, will not sit back and allow this to happen.

We will return to it at report stage, and in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We do not have a lead amendment before a summer, so the question is that clause 57 remain part of the that clause 57 remain part of the bill. The contents have it. We turn bill. The contents have it. We turn

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to schedule six, amendment 215 a. I now rise to speak to amendments
17:27
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I now rise to speak to amendments to schedule six in my name, and as I explained at the all his briefing on explained at the all his briefing on 8 May, these amendments have been made following welcome scrutiny of the bill. They don't bring forward new policy but aim to ensure the legislation operates more effectively to implement policies already reflected in the bill. I will also speak to all amendments within the group which amend clause 57 or schedule 36 or the government's amendments I have tabled.

Turning 1st to amendments GT 16L, 216M, 216U, 216W, 216J, 216N, 216p, 216Q, and 216V in my name, there is currently no provision for a sanction where the employer fails to comply with access arrangements in relation to a worker application for trade union due recognition. Where legislation imposes a duty, there must be a corresponding enforcement mechanism to give effect to that duty. This is why these amendments have been tabled and why they are necessary. Turning to amendments to 16LA, 216M, 216 MZ B, 216M is a in the name of Lord Sharpe, these all relate to sanctions on the employer or the union where one of the parties fails to comply with access arrangements generally in relation to a worker application for trade union recognition.

Amendments to 16 LA, tabled by the noble Lord Sharpe seeks to introduce a proportionality test whether CAC considers applying a sanction on the employer to prevent them campaigning should they be in breach of an access agreement. This amendment is not necessary. It would make it harder for the CAC to issue an order as determining how breached by the employer and how that would be difficult to establish. It should be sufficient for the CAC to establish that a breach has occurred.

Amendments to 16LB tabled by the noble Lord Lord 16LB tabled by the noble Lord Lord Sharpe seeks to add an additional sanction where union has reached an access agreement by allowing the CAC to impose a sanction preventing the union from campaigning. This amendment is necessary because, in relation to applications by workers seeking the recognition of the union, the CAC has the ultimate sanction of declaring that the union is the recognised should the union fail to comply with the order. Amendment 216 MZ a seeks to clarify the union or the worker can enforce a CAC order but not both.

The aim being to avoid overlapping enforcement action. I thank the noble Lord for this amendment, but it is not necessary. The reason this is part of the union and can enforce the order is because we cannot assume that where there is an application by workers of the union that it won't be of the same view. To insist that only one party or the other can enforce the order would deprive the other party of their rights. This shows that this bill is about striking the right balance between unions, employers and workers.

Should both the union be at the same view, then the court could simply join the application together when considering whether an employer had reached an order. In that event, there would be no overlapping there would be no overlapping The noble Lord's amendment seeks to preserve the role of the CAC as a primary enforcement body. I understand the spirit of this amendment. We agreed that for the most part in the recognition and derecognition process, the CAC should be the primary enforcement.

However, this is not pro. Here where the employer is already in breach of an order of the CAC. In this instance, the worker or the union should have the right to seek recourse against the employer for breaching the order of the CAC full anomaly, the final recourse for breaching a CAC order would be for the CAC to either dismiss or accept an application. In this instance, if the CAC were to use their ultimate sanction and dismiss the work application for derecognition, this will punishing the workers, for a breach made by the employer.

This is why we are enabling the workers or unions to be able to seek enforcement via the court system. The noble Lords next amendment, 216 MZC seeks to give employers the right to enforce a CAC order, where union has failed to imply with an , with derecognition, there has been separate by workers. This amendment is not necessary. Where union is in breach of an access agreement, the CAC already has a significant decisive sanction. That is, if the union fails to comply with the CAC order, the CAC can declare that the union has been derecognised.

My Lords, now turning to amendment G to 15 5A, amendments to hundred 15, A, 2S, issuers the committee can operate this policy effectively. They will require the employer to provide the CAC within five days, names date of birth and categories of all workers within the agreed bargaining unit, as at the point where the CAC received the recognition application from the union. Should the employer not provide the information within five working days, the CAC will be given the power to issue an order, requiring this information to be provided.

Should the employer not comply with that order, the CAC will have the power to make a declaration, granting automatic union recognition. This is to ensure that the CAC receives this information promptly, near the start of the recognition process. It will also help avoid disputes, as to which workers should count for the purposes of the recognition process. Turning to government amendments G Turning to government amendments G 216 B, D, H, and I, these are minor amendments, to ensure clarity and consistency.

They are missing paragraph offences relating to bargaining unit applications for a three-year period. They also remove erroneous references to balance preventing findings or declarations of an unfair practice in respect of a new bargaining unit. Amendments G 215 F, 216, K, T, and X, remove a potential five-day mismatch, and align the 20 working day timelines, to agree access, and agreed the bargaining unit, during the recognition and derecognition process, so that the CAC decision and adjudication periods for the two will, as far as possible, coincide.

These amendments will also help ensure the CAC's adjudication for access relates to the bargaining unit the CAC has determined. Amendment G 216 F seeks to close a potential loophole we have identified. Currently, once a union has been secretary recognised, under part one of schedule A1, an employer can subsequently make an application under part three, where the bargaining unit has significantly changed. One of the considerations is whether there has been a significant change in a number of workers in any bargaining unit.

If the CAC agrees with the employer's request, under part three, it can then order a ballot. As there is currently no time bar in relation to part three applications, once a union has been statutorily recognised, there is potential for an employer to recruit into the bargaining unit, the change you get substantially for the purpose of the union derecognised. This is not new policy but seeks to make the policy work better by closing this loophole. Its purpose is to prevent any employer from undermining the recognition process by significantly changing the number of workers in the bargaining unit, once a union has been statutorily recognised.

Moving onto amendments to hundred 16 Y, YA, YB, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, these seek to require the 10% membership test of application, to be subject to a minimum of three workers, the power of this bill, to enable ministers to bring forward secondary legislation to vary the 10% membership threshold, should be restricted to no less than 5% membership of the bargaining unit, this, again, being subject to a minimum of three workers. As I have said, and as our plan to make work pay is clear, we believe the current thresholds pose too high a hurdle in modern workplaces, which are increasingly fragmented.

We want therefore to be able to consider whether the 10% membership threshold, application, should be reduced in future. We want to consult, however, before making any final decisions. The power enables ministers to adjust the long-standing 10% membership application threshold, to a percentage figure between 10% and 2%. This is because that was the figure used by the previous government, when they produced in 2020 the threshold that triggers information and consultation arrangements under the information and consultation of employees regulations and from 10% and 2% of any employees in the workplace.

In My Lords will agree that 2% is not unreasonable figure to consult on, among other options. This is why we do not agree with restricting the power to reduce the application threshold to 5% membership of the bargaining unit. The power is framed to enable ministers to have the maximum possible options when considering whether, and if so, by how much, we may reduce the application threshold in the future, once we have taken account of views expressed in consultation. The deficit membership test application has never been subject to a minimum requirement of three or any other number of workers.

We do not accept why they should be the case now or for any percentage threshold in the figure in the future. Turning to amendments to hundred 15 into a ZZA, , ZZ a CA, and ZZD, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, this seeks to circumvent the changes in the employment rights Bill, but will prevent employers from initiating improvement it dilutes the bargaining unit, for the purpose of thwarting recognition. Due to the impact that mass recruitment into the bargaining unit can have into recognition application, the government has been clear that freezing the composition of the bargaining unit at the point of application receipt is important in ensuring fair recognition balance.

Turning to amendments 216 FA, and FB, tabled by Lord Sharpe, that SA is a necessary amendment, as a change in the organisational structure of the business or a change in the activities pursued by the employer, will continue to be grounds for the CAC to consider the appropriateness of the bargaining unit, we are only disregarding the change in the number of workers as a means for consideration, as has been addressed with regard to our concerns of flooding the bargaining unit.

216 F that are B6 to overrule the three-year freeze on the CAC's powers to determine the appropriateness of the bargaining unit, following changes to the additional unit. This amendment would enable employers to adjust the composition of the bargaining unit post application but, to force a reassessment of the bargaining unit, with attention for derecognition. This would undermine the recognition aim for the employer bargaining unit manipulation I am conscious that we have had a bit of a duplication of issues here, I should say that isn't the fault of the government, it was the fault of the people who chose to pull their amendments out of what should have been a general debate, but apologies for repeating some of our arguments.

But I think it made sense in these amendments as well. To conclude, whilst I am grateful for the keen interest in schedule six of clause 57, in this debate and in the previous debate, I hope, for the reasons I have stated, that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noble Lords amendments 215 ZZA is withdrawn. Amendment proposed, schedule six,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, schedule six, page 218, 917, at the end, insert the words as printed on the Marshalled list. We do have
17:40
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
amendments, to amendment, the first of these is that a 215 AZZA, Lord Sharpe of Epsom.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Lady for her exploration of the amendments, the government amendments in particular, government amendments in particular, I would say, however, she argues I would say, however, she argues this should have been something of a nature of general debate. The reasons why the amendments were deep-rooted in the other cases was that they all relate to the that they all relate to the government amendments, which the government is trying to pass off as technical and they are anything but. So this deserved a discreet debate So this deserved a discreet debate and this is what it is going to get.

I am going to have to speak at some I am going to have to speak at some length on this, there is a great deal to cover, which I apologise in advance, but to start with, amendment 215 AZZA, this amendment is essential to ensure the union recognition but remains fair actually represented of the bargaining unit at the time of the ballot. The government's current position, which looks in workforce position, which looks in workforce data, as of the application date, and refuses to provide updates, rests on a false premise, that is that the workplace is static and unchanging and that is simply not the case.

Many industries, from hospitality and retail, logistics and manufacturing can experience significant changes in their workplace composition over time. Employees leave, new workers are hired, entire teams can be restructured in response to market demand, or seasonal shifts. By refusing to allow the CAC to request updated workforce information, the government's approach risks balance that are fundamentally out of date, and an electoral exercise held not in the workforce but on a ghost workforce that no longer exists. Our amendment would give the CAC the power to direct employers to provide updated workforce information, where material changes occur, allowing the ballot to reflect the current reality.

This is not a matter of administrative tidiness, it protects workers from having union recognition impose, based on outdated data. Often being excluded from the democratic process entirely because they joined the company after the arbitrary cut-off. Furthermore, the CAC has a proven track record of acting properly and impartially to ensure the balance of fair and Reddit ballots are fair and accurate, so this strengthens rather than weakens the role of democratic workers rights. Without this power, the governance framework risks disenfranchised many workers, undermining the confidence in the entire union recognition process.

I have to say, noble Lords opposite frequently cite democratic and certain current employment law and if they are serious and not just paying lip service to that notion, they should back this amendment and the others, to which I am speaking. My Lords, amendment 215 AZZB, My Lords, amendment 215 AZZB, commence an injustice embedded in the amendments 215 A, the sixth to exclude any work that joins the bargaining unit after the application they, from participating in a recognition ballot. This exclusion is indefensible.

It denies newly hired employees any salient process that will deny impact to their working conditions, representation, and potentially, their relationship with their employer. This principle at stake is simple, democratic fairness requires that those affected by a decision have the opportunity to participate in making it. To this good work is based solely on an arbitrary application date denies that this right. It is not, as the noble minister asserted just now, fair. It risks imposing union recognition, while conversely denying it on employees who are not allowed to express their views.

Where employee turnover is high other workforce expands rapidly due to seasonal demand, the government's approach risks disenfranchising a significant portion of the workforce. These workers are often the most vulnerable and most in need of representation. Our amendment ensures that whole workers employed within the bargaining unit up to the close of the ballot would be eligible to vote. This aligns with the recognition process, that, with democratic pencils and with the reality of modern employment patterns, and deny these workers face, to undermine the legitimacy, into the entire process.

Turning to amendment 215 AZZC, this amendment reinforces the need for fairness, by ensuring that newly hired workers are not automatically excluded from the recognition ballot. Provided they are employed before the ballot concludes. And again, we believe it is untenable for the government to argue that workers hired after the application date should have no say in the process determines their represented status, and the terms and conditions that govern their work. In industries that are characterised by rapid hiring of seasonal peaks, or unpredictable labour needs, the workforce on the application date may bear little resemblance to the workforce at the time of the ballot.

By allowing all workers employed up to the ballot close to vote, we uphold principles of inclusivity and fairness, ensuring that this ballot truly reflects the views of those it affects. My Lords, amendment AZZC, A, recognises the realities categorised by employment volatility, such as, we have talked about already, retail hospitality, and logistics. These industries often see dramatic fluctuations in employee numbers, sometimes doubling or halving staff numbers, within a matter of weeks and months. The government's proposals failed to take this volatility into account.

It imposes rigid cut-offs, disenfranchised workers, who joined up to the application date. Even up to the application date. Even The composition. This is not a marginal issue, my Lords, in some sectors, the workplace or the application date may represent only a fraction of the workers who will work there over the coming months. So our amendment simply allows the CAC discretion to consider these fluctuations. It ensures that workers are not excluded simply because they joined after a fixed date in the sector, where employee numbers change constantly, this discretionary power for the CAC is vital to protect democratic fairness and prevents arbitral exclusions, for the recognition process.

To ignore this and the reality of employment volatility is to impose A1 size fits none model, that risks disenfranchising tens of thousands of workers. Amendment AZZD, safeguard the integrity of union recognition processes by requiring the CAC to consider whether excluding new employees from a ballot would affect the outcome or on demand." Fairness before issuing on demand." Fairness before issuing The government's proposals in their current form allow the exclusion of workers who joined after the application day without any requirement to assess the impact on the balance fairness.

This risks union recognition being declared in a workforce snapshot but does not reflect the reality at the time of the decision. Such a process is inherently unfair and could lead to recognition decisions that lack legitimacy. By requiring the CAC to make a considered judgement on the fairness of excluding new employees, this moment ensures that recognition decorations are founded on a truly representative mandate. The government presents members to 16F as a stability measure to freeze bargaining units for three years following recognition, implying that this is a straightforward and/or technical safeguard.

But far from being merely technical, this is a profound policy choice with significant implications for worker representatives. With significant indications for collective bargaining legitimacy and the agility of labour relations in a dynamic industrial setting. It is entirely appropriate that we scrutinise and seek to narrow scope where it risks unintended injustice. Under the government's proposal, once the CAC issues declaration recognising a particular bargaining unit, for the next three years, the CAC may not take into account any substantial changes in the number of workers employed in that unit when considering whether it remains appropriate.

In other words, even if it has been transformed by large- scale operational restructuring, CAC is barred as looking at this from grounds of the unit. We understand the intent. That is to provide certainty and to avoid constant rerunning of recognition ballots. This lanky moratorium risks locking in a bargaining unit that no longer reflects the reality on the ground. Companies merge or divest visions, supply chains are reorganised, automation or digitalisation reshapes roles, and entire sites may open or close.

There may be new categories of workers, like remote workers or gig workers may join. Andthe business may emerge. If the bargaining unit remain static despite changes such as these, the collective bargaining framework may become disconnected from the workforce it purports to represent. Workers may find themselves excluded from representation or represented under a collective arrangement ill suited to their changed roles or employee structure. Amendment 216 FA introduces a carefully targeted narrow exception. Unless the CAC is satisfied that substantial operational restructuring has occurred which materially alters the composition or function of the bargaining unit.

This preserves the government aim of stability in most circumstances while allowing the CAC to respond to transformative changes. It is not carte blanche for changes but requires the CAC be satisfied that the restructuring is substantial meaning it must alter who is on the unit or how the unit functions and collective bargaining. This strikes the right balance and prevents incremental challenges but it also ensures that cases of genuine change would remain fit for purpose. S&P cannot understand why the government would not want to accept that amendment.

I could go on with examples but I won't. The response of the government over broad freeze by introducing a principal narrowed gateway. Should the CAC be able to revisit appropriateness, even within the three-year window. This preserves the stability that the disenfranchised of workers or misalignment of collective bargaining. So, I would advise we support this amendment. Moving onto amendment 216 FB, once again, the government of the house believe that rigid three-year probation on workforce changes is a technical refinement for stability, but in truth, it is a sweeping possibility that may have representations of workers.

We remain representative, and a moment to 16 FB does exactly that by empowering the CAC to override the three-year restriction when necessary to maintain accurate representation. Under amendment 216F, the CAC must disregard changes in the workforce for three years after recognition and the risk is plain. If employee numbers or compositions will shift materially through new roles as I outlined, the bargaining unit may cease to mirror the workforce but the CAC will be powerless to act because three years have not collapsed.

So our amendment states that subparagraph does not apply where the CAC determines the continued application. That would result in the bargaining unit no longer accurately representing the workforce for the purpose of collective bargaining. In effect, it creates a safety valve. If the CAC on assessment concludes that ignoring workforce changes would render the unit unrepresented, it may set aside the moratorium and allow reassessment, and this is critical for preserving democratic and representative collective bargaining. My Lords, collective bargaining depends on bargaining units encompassing workers whose interests are to be negotiated.

Lord Henley gave us a very interesting canter through the work of collective bargaining the other day and I think that was his conclusion. If after recognition, the units have resolved significantly through a new business employment or different categories of staff, the original unit may no longer cover those workers or conversely may cover a smaller or different cohort, so amendment to 16 FB ensures that the CAC could step in if the disparity between the unit and the workforce grows too large. This safeguard is not a call for endless or frivolous challenges but a measured principle that the unit must remain accurate in representing those it purports to cover.

Amendments to 16 LA and cover. Amendments to 16 LA and 216LB. 216 LA addresses the circumstances under which the CAC may impose sanctions on an employer during a D recognition process, specifically restrictions on campaigning or other orders under paragraph 4. The government's existing text deems an employer to have failed to comply with duties, but without an explicit proportionality test or requirement to assess materiality of the brief. The risks the CAC is applying sanctions where it was trivial or in a fairness of the recognition process was not underlined.

So labelling this as a technical tweak deny significance. It denies the threshold for employing serious restrictions in a sensitive process affects employees rights to choose representation. Without clear safeguards, they could restrict Or campaigning over a minor procedural lapses have no real impact on the D recognition balance fairness, and that would be disproportionate and could shell legitimate employer engagement undermining confidence in the process. Again, I could go on to talk about proportionality at some length, but I think everyone's sanity, I won't do that.

Amendment 216 introduces a fundamental safeguard of proportionality and materiality before the CAC restricts employers campaigning in D recognition. This is not a trivial tweak but a necessary protection affair process, employer rights and overall confidence in D recognition outcomes. Amendment 216 addresses the mirror-image situation for unions. It allows the CAC to issue a declaration to impose sanctions in D recognition applications but it is not require a proportionality or materiality assessment before campaigning. It is vital that unions be central to the same safeguards as employers.

It is fundamentally unfair to propose functionality testing employers and not unions. If the CAC must consider proportionality before sanctioning an employer, the same standard must apply and do otherwise risks unfairly curbing legitimate union communication on the lower threshold. This is far from a technical point. It goes to the heart of equal treatment in the process. Again, I will spare the house from a variety of illustrative examples. Amendment 216 MZ a clarifies that enforcement of the CAC order may be perceived either by the workers or by the union but not by both.

Without such parity, we risk overlapping or conflicting enforcing actions arising from the same breach, creating uncertainty and potential delay. By specifying either/or, we seek to have enforcement roots, reducing the balance on because and avoiding duplication, and this protects all parties, employers and workers from the confusion and cost that arrives when multiple parallel proceedings are possible. Amendment 216 MZ B builds on that clarity. This amendment provides that the enforcement they be undertaken only by the CAC itself using its existing statutory powers.

This preserves the CSEs job as the body that allows compliance, allowing to create civil actions to fragment the process, inconsistent outcomes and outline the central position. By channelling enforcement through the CAC alone, we would achieve streamlined consistent and expert resolution for the breaches. Finally, amendment 216 MZ C ensures parity by granting employers the same enforcement rights against unions as those afforded to unions or workers in the existing drafting. If the union fails to comply with the CAC order, the employer must have equivalent standing to seek enforcement through the CAC.

This balance is right on both sides and prevents a scenario where only one party type can act, thereby safeguarding procedural fairness. Equal enforcement rights internal compliance and reinforce compliance that the CAC's decisions will be implemented. I'm conscious that I have not spoken to Lord Lucas's amendments I'm sure he will follow in a second, but I did hear the objection to them which is along the lines of we have never done this before. Much of this bill has never been done before so I don't really regard that as a valid objection.

I look forward to hearing more but for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now, I beg to move an amendment, I have forgotten which one. 215 a ZZ hay proposed as an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

215 a ZZ hay proposed as an amendment to 15 ZA. And grateful to Lord Ministers

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And grateful to Lord Ministers introduction to my amendments. I introduction to my amendments. I accept that the government wants to go for 2% as the lower limit, but on my other two amendments which my other two amendments which require a minimum of three people, I have found the governments
17:58
17:59
Baroness Lawlor Portrait Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)
-
-
honourable friend Lord Sharpe. 215 ZZ B, ZZ C, and ZZ D. These are to section 6, and I am responding to the government's own amendments with the section, qualify you may take part in a ballot to ensure that all workers in the union before the close of the ballot may vote, and each amendment, those who join after the application date but before the close of the ballot, newly hired workers within the bargaining unit, as well as amendment ZZ D that the CAC is satisfied at the exclusion of new employees would not materially affect the outcome of a ballot or undermine democratic fairness.

And new workers who joined the bargaining unit after the application date are not automatically disregarded for the purposes of recognition. These amendments are designed to respond to the government's proposal to freeze the workplace bargaining unit and the right to participate in a ballot of those who join after the ballot of those who join after the They are changes to the 1992 Acts, schedule A1, on collective bargaining recognition. My Lords, that was a considered act on the complicated matter of the ballots to be maintained in law, including employers, individual employees, and trade unions.

In schedule A1, the framework and procedures for recognition, and the related entitlement to conduct collective bargaining, that is, as the act puts it, negotiations relating to pay, hours and holidays. These arrangements are there and carefully involved, in how the process recognition works. And the court can review what happens. This bill though excludes workers who joined the relevant bargaining unit after the application date. And it replaces, elsewhere, which we are not discussing now, the eligibility test.

The amendments that my noble friend proposes would strengthen the democratic process so that the voices of new workers to the workplace, who may be affected by the industrial action or the ballots as they are proposed, are not excluded I can see reasons, antidemocratic reasons, why existing antidemocratic reasons, why existing members may want to exclude new members. They are not sure how they vote, they have not been subjected to the ethos and pressures of fellow members, they may not vote the right way.

But the laws we pass in this parliament should be fair and reflect all the voices. And those people representing, by the bargaining unit, involving a ballot and potentially described, should have a say and be entitled to have a say. The arrangements, as they now exist, are generous to the unions, who only represent one fifth of the UK total workforce. And there are 6.4 million of 33.49 workers. We should remember that. And the balance that exists between organised, unionised labour, who call the shots, the small man and woman in the workforce.

The millions of others. We should not take a step which excludes some of those small people who have a say in participating in a ballot if they happened to have joined in the workforce, after the application date. That is why I am supporting these amendments.
18:03
Lord Goddard of Stockport Portrait Lord Goddard of Stockport (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Firstly, I rise to speak the amendments standing in the name of Baroness Jones. And these proposals, while numerous and large and technical in nature, form a broader part of the framework for trade union recognition and access. And I think, although they are technical, in nature, if you read, you will note the government put a little bit of meat on quite a small bone. For the first time in this bill, we have actually seen that kind of thing begin to be teased out for some notably, amendments to hundred 15 A and F, we set out a clear procedural timelines and information requirements, which employs in Central Arbitration Committee, to help improve transparency and , throws parties involved.

I establishing further timelines, such as a five-day window to provide workforce data on a 20 day period to agree access arrangements, these provisions are aimed to support a more orderly and informed recognition process. And I'm working on that. The amendments tabled by Lord Sharpe, I acknowledge the intention to reflect workplace changes more accurately, some of his proposals, in our view, risk rating a little uncertainty. Amendment ZZB and ZZC, for instance, include provisions to include workers in the ballot, undermining the principle that eligibility should be based on the state of the bargaining unit on the time of the application.

It is like buying a lottery ticket after the lottery time has finished, then complaining if your numbers do come up, and you are not allowed to win. You have to be in it, before we started. Similarly, the carve outs from the stability period found in amendments that effort a commander FB, the clarity and consistency from both employers and trade unions require, we must be cautious about layering too many exceptions that could reopen, settle matters, and prolong disputes unnecessarily. While in the name of modernising in these areas are welcome, it is vital that clarity and cyclicity are not lost in this process.

The framework particularly around recognition, access, and enforcement, remain workable and intelligible for employers and workers, alike. This is important in sectors characterised by high turnovers and volatility, therefore, we to consider refining his proposals with that in mind. The system will support effective and fair collective button, without inviting further ambiguity. And I think these amendments, I think, are well laid out it's really well allayed. And I thank Lord Sharpe, and Lord Hunt, for their clarity tonight, and actually dealing with the issues, and I have to say, to everybody that has been sitting for I think seven or eight long nights, that business is not moving any slower, but clarity has much improvement I want to thank them for being more concise and talking to the issues, which I have appreciated and I know my group have appreciated.

And I think the Minister, through slightly gritted teeth, might agree as well is the way forward.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I am conscious we have had a slightly disjointed debate here. Because some of these issues, as I said, were debated in the previous week. And have now also previous week. And have now also been covered in my opening remarks. been covered in my opening remarks. But I just want to pick up a few points. I am a mystic grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for
18:07
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for saying that what we are attempting to do here is to create a more orderly recognition process, and I am grateful for him, because that is exactly what our government amendments are trying to do, to provide the clarity that we felt was missing. And I should say, to noble Lords, in addition to the comments I made earlier, that we did also notify all peers of the government's amendments, twice in writing. And we invited all peers to a briefing on 8 invited all peers to a briefing on 8 May.

I'd also come all of the details are spelt out in all peers letter, and supporting annex. We have taken pains to help explain the thinking behind our amendments. I would also say that obviously most recognition processes go through extremely smoothly, but we believe this reform is necessary, to prevent recruitment for the purposes of thwarting trade union recognition. The process must be fair and not undermined by underhand tactics, and obviously not all recruitment is underhand. We decided after consultation that the freezing proposed in the bill is the best way to achieve that fairness.

So, we are attempting to come up with a fair system. Attempting to distinguish between the various intentions of different employers, and the recruitment practices is recruitment practices is impractical, and would be likely to lead to disputes full so we thought this would not be in the interest of employers, the unions, or the workers. And of course, there will be changes in the people in the bargaining unit. Where reunion is recognised, new workers will be able to take part in subsequent ballots, for a book, should a derecognition ballot be held, and of course, other forms of consultation as well.

So it's only for the very particular thing today with the trade union recognition, that these restrictions apply. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, said he wanted to introduce a partiality test. It would make it harder for the CAC to issue an order, determining how a breach by the employer affected the recognition process. For them, it would be difficult to establish. So it should be sufficient for the CAC to establish a breach has occurred, rather than having to make the more difficult judgement about proportionality.

I would also say the CAC is very well equipped and well experienced in doing such a thing. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I'd say to the noble Lord we are not objecting to his amendment only because it hasn't been done before, we are objecting because we wanted to consult before we made any final decisions about changing the acceptors threshold. From the 10% proposed limit. As I said, I think I have covered most of the other points, either in the letters we have sent out or in my earlier speeches.

I therefore ask the noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would be very grateful if the noble Baroness could address the substance of my amendment. 10% or 2% substance of my amendment. 10% or 2% is all very fine, but if it results is all very fine, but if it results in the answer of one, one employee, in the answer of one, one employee, being sufficient, that seems to be not an ideal situation. In terms of looking after small businesses, it looking after small businesses, it would be sensible to require there is a minimum number.

I cannot see anything in the structure of the bill at the moment that allows a minimum number to be applied to this percentage. A percentage can generate one, just because the generate one, just because the company is small. Whether it is 10% or 2%. Would it not be a good idea to have something in the bill, to have something in the bill, subject to consultation, which allowed small companies with a small workforce, for it not just to be one employee who is triggering this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

seizure. -- This procedure. I was certain the noble Lord, that would come out in the consultation, but his proposal, I consultation, but his proposal, I think of three, is somewhat an arbitrary number. If we are going to do that, there are all sorts of minimum members that could be -- minimum members that could be -- Minimum numbers that could be applied, so I urge noble Lords that these are the issues we will consider in consultation, but a consider in consultation, but a rather arbitrary figure that he has proposed I don't think it's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

appropriate at this time. But it still requires something

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But it still requires something in the bill to allow a minimum number. We can return to that matter number. We can return to that matter

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment AZZA, not moved. Withdrawn. And amendments to hundred Withdrawn. And amendments to hundred 15 AZZB, D, not moved. The question therefore is that amendment 215 A be agreed to, As many as are of that agreed to, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". Amendment contrary, "Not content". Amendment 215 AZA, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, not moved. And 215 5AA, not moved. moved. And 215 5AA, not moved.

Amendment 215 B, and amendment 215 C Amendment 215 B, and amendment 215 C and D, moved formally? The question is these amendments be agreed to unblock. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content" Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 215 DA, DB, and the sea, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, not moved? Amendment 215 E, Baroness Jones, moved formally. The question is this be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content".

The contents have it. Amendment 215 EA, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, not moved. Amendment 215 F, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, moved formally. The question is at this amendment be agreed to, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 215 F that a-215 FI, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, not moved. Amendment 215 G, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, moved formally? The question is amendment 215 G be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content".

Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 215 GA, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, not moved. Amendment 215 5H, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, moved formally? The question is this amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 250 HA, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, not moved. Amendments to hundred 15 I, J and K, moved formally en bloc. The question is these amendments be agreed to, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content".

Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 216, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, not moved. Amendment 216 A, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, moved formally. The question is this amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 216 AA, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, not moved. Amendment 216 B, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, moved formally. The question is this amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content".

Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendments to hundred 60 -- 216 BA, not moved. Amendments to hundred 16 not moved. Amendments to hundred 16 The question is that these amendments be agreed to unblock. The contents have it. Amendments to 16 FA as amendment to 16F not moved. The question is that amendment to 16FB agreed to. The contents have 16FB agreed to. The contents have it.

Amendment 216G moved formally. The question is that this be agreed The question is that this be agreed to. The contents have it. Amendments to 16H2216K moved formally en bloc. The question is that these amendments be agreed to. As many of that agreement will say content. The contents have it. Amendment 216 KA. contents have it. Amendment 216 KA. Not moved. Amendment 216 LA as an amendment to amendment 216 Amendment 216 LA as an amendment to amendment 216L. Not moved.

The question is that amendment to 16 The question is that amendment to 16B agreed to and moved formally. The question is that amendment to 16 Al, as many of that opinion should say content. The contents have it. Not moved. Amendments to 16M to move formally. The question is that this amendment be agreed to. And then went to 16 MZ be agreed to. And then went to 16 MZ a to MZ C. Not moved.

Therefore, the question is that amendment to 16 Therefore, the question is that amendment to 16B agreed to. The question is that amendment to 16MB agreed to. The contents have it. Amendment 216 not moved. Amendment 216 Amendment 216N to 216Z moved formally en bloc. Move formally en bloc. Question is that these amendments be agreed to formally en bloc. Amendment 216 not moved. Amendment to one's why a NY B. Not moved. The question is that schedules sex as amended stand part of the bill.

As many of that opinion should say content. The contents have it. We now come to the group of amendments beginning with amendment 216 with amendment 2161C in clause 58.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I want to move the amendment in my name and I will be speaking to 216D. I also will be addressing 216D. I also will be addressing amendments to 17 which were tabled by the noble Lord Lord Burns to by the noble Lord Lord Burns to which I have added my name as indeed has my noble friend Baroness Finn has my noble friend Baroness Finn whose birthday it is today, so she knows how to have a good time. And knows how to have a good time.

And also, I will be addressing 218 a and speaking to various other
18:20
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
speaking to various other amendments. We are debating clauses 58, 59 and 77. Clause 58 is only talking about pedicle funds. The has been the situation in place where political resolution has been needed. And this is a fair, open, democratic process of every 10 years at most that the members of that union are invited to keep the resolution going, any resolution resolution going, any resolution that may be put forward, and indeed, one of the things that concerns me in this is that this simply wipes out that need, so we couldn't up in a situation dependent on the leadership of that union don't entirely know how a resolution can be put forward for the political resolution, but by and large, my understanding of trade unions is that individuals can't put these forward full stop they can only be put forward in terms of resolutions and motions, often by the person who is the delegate of the branch, and as a consequence, in effect, we have the situation where political resolutions go on as an item.

I'm not sure that is the right approach, recognising that this bill is about changing other ways that people can vote, making it more digital, a lot easier, and I understand why the Labour government leaves that is the right approach, and I am also conscious of why changes have been made in the past. However, in my proposal, what I am looking to do is to setup a majority of those eligible for the threshold of the stripe to vote here.

Here there is none of that at all, and it shows to me that I am somewhat with trade me that I am somewhat with trade union, there is people not opting out, but give you an example, the musicians union, only 18% of their members actually voted in the ballot. Unison's last resolution, it was less than 15% of people involved. They were determining whether to keep this going forward, and as I say, it does not seem very open to anyone who might want to table a different resolution.

I think it is fair to say that I am not expecting Unison to start contributing funds to the Conservative party any time soon, but I guess the political funds labelling gives the game away on where Unison would like their funds to go, and that is democracy, but I was thinking of ways we can extend this. In terms of 216YD, one of the things I thought, instead of 10 years, we are now having elections, but hopefully will be in a situation where we are now looking at elections every five years, and recognising the direct link between political funds and political parties.

I think it would make sense to start to think about these happening every five years. We are in a world of politics that is significantly changing. Almost every Parliamentary constituency has at least five candidates, at least six or seven in other parts outside of England, whether it is in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, so I think it is worth considering whether a not we should be looking at having these updated. In terms of clause 59, I generally agree with the proposal that we should get rid of this in its entirety, but I am particularly thinking back to our second reading of this bill, and while I won't go into detail, the noble Lord bones spoke about what had happened with his review.

I don't plan to dwell on this particular amendment because there are others who will contribute to it more, but to me, goes back to a sensible approach that, instead of having to go quite a long procedure, and to some extent, it is properly contrary to article 11 where there is an implicit right not to join a trade union or not to join a political fund. This rather scraps that, despite the comments by ministers that this was OK because the basis was that you can opt out, and it will take affect the following January.

You might have contributed a lot of money by then, but we think it is all right. That is why I am delighted to be sorted because this is designed, if we go ahead with this opt out approach, rather than opt in, that we make the timeliness of somebody's decision on the day that they make that decision, and they may not have all the paperwork necessary, and therefore, I think if we were to give them four weeks at the beginning of their time of being a trade union, that if they decided they didn't want to contribute, their decision could be backdated by the day of joining.

And I think this is just an approach of a modern world where people sign up to something. They may not want to be spending all their time looking at the small print, and quite where that is being what they can or cannot do to affect their rights, and contrary to the employments rights Bill, this is removing an employees rights in effect, and if the government was to scrap that element or have it on the day, I would be delighted that they would be inclined to do that, although I would stick to the amendment preferably tabled by the local nought Lord Burns.

In terms of some of the other approaches that have been put forward in this various amendment, I think it is right that I wouldn't want to accuse any trade union of having to have intimidation or the like of what is happening with their members when it comes to these, but a bit like we have heard eloquently put forward by the noble Lady, employers intimidating is something she keeps siting with good evidence and good experience in that regard.

But some of the trades unions that have formed, very few of those were changed by governments, but some of that was on the basis of concerns about intimidation, so I hope that the Minister will at least recognise some of the concerns that noble Lords may have on this particular section. The have been a variety of amendments tabled which will get us to a similar place, and in particular, finally talking to clause 77. I think one of the elements about this is it starts to remove transparency, and transparency is a good thing when talking about democracy.

When we're talking about contributions that organisations are making to a variety of political parties. I am surprised that the government is going down this route. I cannot believe it is that arduous for trade unions to compile this information and these other aspects of what is happening with certification offices which will get into another group, but in particular, thinking of the importance that has rightly been put into consideration of issues with the Electoral Commission, that we should be considering this carefully at this stage, and that is why removing transparency is not the right direction called this house.

So, intending to keep this debate lively NPC, it is important that we make sure that we get to the bottom of why this has felt necessary, and I hope that the Minister will be able to explain fundamentally why they have taken an about turn, and I don't want to upset Lord Goddard, if it isn't being designed to increase the amount of political funds that are going to be used, I'm sure in very good ways, but also, in other ways when the transparency is removed and we won't be able to have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that scrutiny. I beg to me. Amendment proposed, clause 58,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, clause 58, page 17, leave out the words and insert resolution and insert the words as printed on the list, and I ought to advise the noble Lords that if amendment 216 YC is voted, can't call it 216YD because of exemption.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. Sorry. My amendment relates to clause 59 and the requirement to contribute to a requirement to contribute to a political point. And I am very political point. And I am very
18:30
Lord Burns Portrait Lord Burns (Crossbench)
-
-
political point. And I am very With a trade union wanting to spend setting up a separate fund to finance any such expenditure, the amendment 's addresses the explicit ask of opting into the union's political fund or they should automatically become contributors to the political fund unless they take action to opt out. The present position is the new trade union members only become contributors to the political fund if they give notice of their willingness to do so by submitting an opt in notice.

Every year, unions must notify members of their right to submit a withdrawal notice. Clause 59 of the legislation proposes a change in both conditions so new members will automatically become contributors to the fund unless they give notice that they wish to opt out and they will only be notified of their right to withdraw every 10 years rather than every year at as present. This is a controversial issue today and has been debated for more than 100 years. The position on opt in or opt out has changed political funds were

**** Possible New Speaker ****

legalised. Will the noble Lord give way? We

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will the noble Lord give way? We might find an opportunity to take might find an opportunity to take advantage of the water provided. I advantage of the water provided. I just wanted to stand and say that I thought the noble Lord is making a thought the noble Lord is making a powerful contribution to this debate and I cannot expect anything other than I'm going to support him in what it is he is advancing in his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

argument and I'm grateful for the noble Lord giving way. It is that time of year when I take various inhalers for hayfever take various inhalers for hayfever and such like and the dust tends to go in my throat when I sit for a go in my throat when I sit for a long period. As I have been this afternoon. I was just mentioning that this is a debate which has gone on for a long time. Between 1946 and 2016, members automatically became contributors unless they opted out.

In 1984, the Conservative government considered legislating changing to opting in but settled for an agreement with the unions who would increase awareness of members of their right to opt out. In 2015, the government introduced a trade union bill that proposed change to the system so both existing and new members would contribute to the political fund if they specifically opted to do so. The Labour opposition argued that this would have a negative impact on union funds and consequently Labour Party funding, arguing this should only be done in a broader party funding reform.

They established a Select Committee to consider the issue and find a solution in parallel with the preference. I was asked to chair the Committee and several remain members of the House today. The Committee concluded introducing an opt in process for all members including existing members could significantly reduce the numbers of union members participating in political funds and also concluded that this would lead to a significant reduction in union payments to the Labour Party, with living donations unaffected. A majority but not all of the Committee concluded that the proposed requirement of opt in should not apply to existing members unless it was part of a broader reform of party funding.

The Committee unanimously decided that opt in mechanism should apply to all new members. After further debate, the Conservative government accepted compromise amendments that limited the opt in amendment despite the unhappiness on their own side. I acknowledge there is no conclusive approach to determining if opting in is better or worse than opting out. In some cases opting out is deemed appropriate such as workplace pensions where the failure to opt in could result in future cost for government.

From various settings when it comes to making additional payments, more people end up paying if they opt out rather than opt in. More cumbersome the administrative hurdles, the greater the likelihood the individual will not exercise their right to opt out. Such hurdles increase the likelihood that the outcome will not be invested by the individual. On balance, we should ensure people make an informed decision based on clear and transparent options. With most financial products and decisions about allowing tech companies to use what is stated, there is a requirement to opt in.

Requiring companies to praise on people's inertia. We spend hours in the House debating the data bill and the question of opting in or out of models ability to learn from copyrighted material. My own view is requiring people to explicitly opt in affects their preferences more accurately. The Minister emphasised that this is not simply a return to the position of pre-2016, however my fear is the substance is what it is and I would welcome clarification on some aspects of the government proposal.

Will it be a requirement that the union application for members joining a union continues to include the statement that they may wish to opt out of the political fund and will not suffer a detriment if they choose not to. Will new members have the option of choosing to opt out before completing the application? Why does the government wish to change the requirement that a member reminded annually of the choice to opt out. They should only be reminded every 10 years, what is the justification for that change? Is there any reason why it should not be possible to give an unbiased choice at the time of joining.

They could be boxes and requirements to tick a box and they could say they wish to contribute to the union political fund and others may not wish to. The application may not be complete without taking one or the other which is a practice we see with online applications. Does the Minister anticipate the proportion of new members contribution to political plans to be -- little funds to be higher than when the 2016 act came in and if so by how much? I say this in the friendliest terms I can muster.

Why are they running the risk that the next time there is a change of government, there will be another reversal that results in something less favourable to Labour and the new compromise, and another reversal may introduce the opt out system, the opt in system, from members new and existing, in other words the proposal on the table from the 2016 compromise that caused all of the trouble at that point. I have no view on if trade union members contributes to little funds are too high low.

Having tried, -- too high or too low, having tried, I resolve my self of the bill is to secure a lasting solution to the issue of contributions to political funds that can stand the test of time as I hope the 2016 compromise would. I propose a movement before we have justification of the change and greater clarity about some of the questions around it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I speak in favour of the Employment Rights Bill as amended. I Employment Rights Bill as amended. I declare an interest when I was general secretary of the UK's largest union UNISON for over 20 largest union UNISON for over 20 years, a union with over 1.3 million members and over 1 million of them
18:39
Lord Prentis of Leeds Portrait Lord Prentis of Leeds (Labour)
-
-
members and over 1 million of them women, mainly low-paid. I have seen it first hand of -- over those 20 years the good that our political fund can do. In my own union, the political fund support campaign, campaigns to reform social care which has been talked about often in this place, campaigns for fairer pensions for women. Better rights pensions for women. Better rights for disabled workers. And human rights. Something I am particularly proud of, our antiracist work, our political funds support projects to bring children from Asian communities together and they fund work tackling racism as part of hope not hate.

I will work with footballers and show racism the red card at school and football matches for over 20 years. The fund is used to send films to every school on the horrors of the Holocaust. Groundbreaking initiatives to build fairer and safer communities. What many do not realise is without using the resources of our political funds, trade unions, it would be unlawful for trade unions to campaign politically on behalf of members in any Pre-election period.

Not just Westminster elections, but all elections. The slow train of money from the political funds caused by the 2016 act and arrangement is under the serious effect of the right to trade unions have had for over 100 years, the right campaign politically. How political funds are used varies from union to union, many are spending the political part and the classical the political part and the classical education union, the PCS, and only 13/48 unions in the TUC are actually affiliated to the Labour Party.

My own union is affiliated, but it always makes transparently clear when a member joins that their political contribution goes either to the Labour link or the nonaffiliated section of the fund known as the campaign fund. New members can choose to pay into one or the other or both, or until 2016 they could opt out. There are no subscription traps. New members were not misled. There were no barriers to opting out and the opting out arrangement as has been said operated for over 60 years through Labour, Tory and coalition administrations before the 2016 act.

It is with this in mind I reflected on the contribution made by Lord Burns in reaching a way forward in 2016 and I thank him for that and his amendment today I don't think should be progressed. It is an amendment that proposes the 2016 arrangement continues under any new legislation. I would ask not to pursue the amendment. Despite good effort of my noble Lord, the 2016 arrangement has not proved a long- term solution for trade union political funds.

They are gradually being drained of resources and with that so is the ability to campaign. More to the point, in any democracy there will always be the threat of any incoming government putting the clock back. There is always a very real possibility that we could get consistent ping-pong on many policies, not just on the political funds, but unfortunately even if we leave things as they are there is no guarantee that any change of government would not lead to another Trade Union Act more Draconian than the act.

The possibility of consistent ping-pong in itself is not an argument for leaving things as they are. Neither is this an argument for not returning to the principal of opting out which operated for 60 years. The 2016 Trade Union Act did what it intended to do, deliberately placing considerable and costly burdens on trade unions and sought to reduce funding to the Labour Party. That was its purpose. But in doing that, it also compromised the ability of trade unions to provide a campaigning and political voice for working people in our country.

That is why the Employment Rights Bill unamended is so important and that is why I stand to ask noble Lords not to pursue the amendment to the political fund sections of the bill and to allow it to move forward and to allow it to move forward
18:46
Baroness Finn Portrait Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-
-
I speak in support of the amendment. I had the pleasure, I apologise that I was not able to speak in second reading, but I did have the pleasure of working on the Trade Union Act into thousand 16. And I will remember the setting of of the Select Committee on the trade union political party funding. This was the report that forced the requirement for new members topped into political fund following its recommendations, and I have to say the committee was brilliantly chaired by the Noble Lord.

I know that phrases in this House can sometimes be overused, but in this case it is absolutely the case and I think in the Secretariat they were absolutely magnificent and the most important thing is they had a cross party of members and recommendations in all but one area, but one of the key considerations and the one that is pertinent to this amendment was the Conservative party's manifesto movement that in future union members would be asked to opt in to contributing to their political fund, rather than just being given the opportunity of opting out to do so.

And the time most members of the union with a political fund paid a political levy into the front and as they took the active decision topped out of doing so, and I remember the Select Committee spent a long time debating because I fear the Noble Lord Prentis when they said this was the established practice for 60 years, there was quite a strong debate with my Noble Friend Lord King that he felt the Kate Marie agreement had not been met to require them to opt out as it should.

But, anyway, the report produced very helpful conclusions and one of the most relevant to two days debate was no one challenged the principle of moving from opt out to opt in. There were differences of opinion about how and when to make that move and critically to whether it should apply to existing members, but the court basically accepted the principle. And the Labour Party had some understandable concerns that many union members would decide not to contribute to the little fund and that such a move was fundamentally unfair.

However, when he appeared before the committee, said I regard political opinion, affiliation and support, as a sovereign decision for an individual citizen. He was, of course, completely right. Opt in is supported because people should not be assumed to support any proposition or organisation. Any product or any service simply because they have failed, often through inertia, to say no. Companies have right when they assume that the customer signed up to something because they have failed to take a box or to see the small print.

If a trade union member decides that he or she does not wish to contribute to the fund that is their decision and they should have the opportunity to actively choose to do so. The behavioural experts consulting gave some powerful evidence about the impact of inertia on human behaviour. The power of inertia benefited the unions and only 11% of their members made the effort to opt out of the political fund, under that then Governments proposals inertia working in the unions, so human nature meant it would be extremely difficult to persuade existing members to make an active choice about whether or not to opt in.

Indeed, Doctor David Huppert of the behavioural insights team said that analogous situations led to the respective more than 20 to 30% of the political fund participation rates. And that brought us onto the second consideration that the move to opt in for existing members would have an impact on the funding of one particular party, the Labour Party. On balance, the committee concluded there would be significant reduction in union payments to the Labour Party. The committee agreed that one way of easing this dilemma would be to distinguish between requirements for new members and those for existing members of trade unions.

For new members it was unanimously agreed that this was the correct way forward and across many different walks of life it is increasingly recognised that people should be asked to exercise the choice and that organisations should not rely on inertia, the recommendation that after minimum transition period of 12 months anyone joining a union or political function of the political levy only if they have chosen to do so and subsequently been incorporated into the Trade Union Act 2016 and it is that consensus that the Labour Party is seeking to undo today with this bill.

This was not the case in the treatment of existing members, the fear was not of existing members choosing to opt out, rather than top-down, and they would simply choose to make no choice at all. I recall many heated discussions about whether the opt in system should be extended to existing members, perhaps on a longer transition period than for new members, or whether existing contribute is should not be included in the act. That is because it was feared that taking the option to existing embers would have significant negative effect on union and Labour Party funding, even with an extended transition period, and I will welcome those discussions.

But the Noble Lord talks about considerable unhappiness on our benches and he is not understating the case when the second option was chosen, there were howls of bad faith. It was at a critical juncture in the Brexit referendum. Full but, my Lords, I did rather subscribe as well to the view of Sir Winston Churchill that it has become a well-established question that matters affecting the interest of parties should not be settled by the imposition of the one side over the other or by an agreement reached either by the leaders of the main parties or by conferences under the impartial guidance of Mr Speaker.

115 of the Select Committee report states if any Government were to use its majority unilaterally to inflict significant damage on the finances of opposition parties, it would risk starting a tit-for-tat conflict that could harm Parliamentary democracy, so while it is wrong for a Government to use their power to undermine their opponents, it is also wrong for a Government to act in a way that leaves them open to question of whether they're acting in the interest of countries or the interest of their own party.

The Labour Party's dependence on the trade union funds means that policy could potentially been seen to be for sale. Just as we said that need not to inflict damage on the finances of the opposition party find myself now more than a little but that that the Labour benches are seeking to unwind the unanimously agreed principle so that their own party's finances would be improved. I am sure that they would not wish to be a key accused of profit for private gain, but that is the effect of clause 59.

It is for this reason and of universal arguments in favour of opting that I have added my name in support of this movement in the name of the Noble Lord burns.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before the Noble Lady sits down,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before the Noble Lady sits down, I am sorry to do this on her birthday, but Lady Finn was in a very key position for some time, so I thought it would be helpful if, I thought it would be helpful if, firstly, you could note on the issue firstly, you could note on the issue that the previous Government over the last 14 years received repeated the last 14 years received repeated representations from trade unions to enjoy the same rights that political enjoy the same rights that political parties enjoy in safe and secure balloting to boost demographic turnout in these ballots.

And would turnout in these ballots. And would be able to encourage and engage more and we got, I think, was a review of the pilot that was never seen again. Secondly, that comparisons were made between trade union membership and subscriptions to commercial services, whereas, of course, Bishop from democratic organisations which exist to defend your rights is not the same as a subscription to a for-profit service. And, finally, I wondered whether the Noble Lady could confirm whether the previous Government ever considered because in this debate we have heard a lot about balance with the previous Government having ever considered having shareholders having right to veto elliptical terminations by companies.

I have no even heard of a shareholders right to opt out, never mind a requirement that the should opt in before a political donation is made by a company.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think that noble Baroness for her intervention. I cannot speak to her intervention. I cannot speak to the balloting et cetera which is out of the scope of this amendment but I can say that shareholders in companies are able to vote in their companies AGM. And what I did not companies AGM. And what I did not actually pay tribute to in my speech actually pay tribute to in my speech and I apologise to the Noble Lord that the brilliant political campaigns that were wrong when I was campaigns that were wrong when I was in Government were remarkable and my in Government were remarkable and my support for opt in does not diminish that or my admiration for them.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

that or my admiration for them. Very briefly I would like to
18:57
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very briefly I would like to support the amendments in the name of the Noble Lord burns. I wanted to just emphasise that in a period of mass disillusionment with mainstream parties that actually opt in was a very important way of putting those parties on their guard and 1/2 to inspire people to want to opt in. Relying on inertia, or not being in a situation whereby you feel that you need to go out and win the support of people to opt in politically, I think is very dangerous because it will create the kind of complacency that we have seen mainstream parties of all sides show over recent years.

I did want to note that it would be dangerous and I sure nobody is implying this that for the party of Government, the Labour Party, to assume that it is any longer the party that represents the working class, long since the days that claim can be made, and I think that it would be better for that party to consider how it can inspire ordinary working people to support them, both at the ballot box but also in relation to something like these funds.

Just in terms of the Noble Lord Prentice, I have every sympathy with him talking about the problems of the difficulties of campaigning when you have not got any money or enough money. Tell me about it, I have been doing it for years. I have not had a political fund to help. At one of the things that I would say is that it all sounded very admirable, but it really did sound as though the Noble Lord Prentice was discussing not so much you need is activist, a campaign group, a particular group and particular issues, that is fine.

I have got no issues with that, I am involved with some of those campaigns, not all of them. And what I have to do is go out and raise false in order to be able to carry on campaigning around the things I believe in. I do not think it is right that trade unions use their political funds to pursue what our political issues beyond the issues of trade unionism. Trade unionism is a particular thing. It can inspire great little revolutions over the years, I agree, but it is not for trade union bureaucrats to pursue their political issues that they enjoy.

enjoy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to primarily speak to the amendments in the name speak to the amendments in the name of myself and the Noble Lady Baroness Cash in respect of
18:59
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Cash in respect of political funds. And I will say in passing that I found the speech of the Noble Lord burns and the speeches of my Noble Friends Baroness Coffey Baroness Finn not just airtight but very compelling. And it seems to me that there is a challenge to try and understand what has significantly changed that leads has significantly changed that leads the Government to make these quite interesting amendments to what has been accepted by Governments of all persuasions, including as has been said a few minutes ago the Blair and the brown Governments that radically altered industrial relations.

I would say also in passing that there has hitherto been a consensus on opt in versus opt out. In the field of delivery of goods and services. I would say to ministers that what is good for the goose is certainly good for the gander. If you are planning opt out selling in these services is the aim of protecting consumers from being ripped off. Why does that not apply to people making fact -based decisions based on evidence of trade unions? I say this because noble Lords will remember in 2016, this is just one example, the Financial Conduct Authority band the opt out selling in financial services to prevent consumers from being defaulted into purchasing add-on products, in other they were no longer automatically enrolled in add-on products unless they are for the -- unless they actively choose it.

If I recollect when I was in the other place, I'm prepared to be corrected, the opposition Labour Party, and if it is good financial services and if it merits joining a trade union cannot be sold to people to encourage them to opt in to the union, then I think that speaks volumes. Notwithstanding what Lord Prentis said, and I have said it before I'm not anti-trade union. I was a member and I think they do an excellent job for providing commercial services to members, but I think there is something slightly sinister and pernicious about changing something that went before which was amended by previous governments.

May I briefly alluded to the amendments in my name because I've got a feeling Baroness cash will be more erudite and fluent in her exposition of the amendments, but the amendment to reduce the period in which trade unions must provide an opt out notice to their members after the party of a political resolution of eight weeks down to four weeks. There should down to four weeks. There should always be, and if we genuinely want to oppose the bill and if it wrecks the bill, does it undermine the the bill, does it undermine the nature of the bill? I actually think nature of the bill? I actually think on a test of reasonableness and balance, this amendment stands up on its own merits because it reduces...

It encourages trade unions to come forward with the notice in a timely fashion and I do not think that will invalidate the inherent merits of that particular clause, clause 59. 20 would reduce the period in which they provide a notice after the 10 year anniversary of the passing of the timescale. It is sensible, practical, and fair in terms of the service delivery for individual members who may wish to explore the possibility of opting out.

It does not mean it is a greenlight and I suspect a senior person would persuade a trade union member that they were best of staying in the union, but that should be provided. With those provisos and I'm interested in the Minister addressing the issue of reasonableness, I am happy to move these amendments.
19:05
Baroness Cash Portrait Baroness Cash (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to support the amendments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to support the amendments in the name of Lord Burns and Baroness Coffey as referred to my Baroness Coffey as referred to my signing of those in the name of Lord signing of those in the name of Lord Jackson as well as two to two, two Jackson as well as two to two, two to three. I also support the group to three. I also support the group of amendments in more general terms. I draw the House as attention to my I draw the House as attention to my interest as declared in the register over the particular fact I'm a significant shareholder in a listed significant shareholder in a listed business so I am an employer.

Also, I'm a member of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and I want to address something which I believe to address something which I believe is fundamental and fundamental attack on one of the rights under the Human Rights Act by which we incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights into this jurisdiction. There is a fundamental right, a fundamental democratic right not to be. To support a political party, either wittingly or by coercion. I'm not suggesting this is by coercion, but we do know and noble colleagues have referenced the financial services that Lord Burns referenced the issues with data protection.

We know there are major problems with fundamentally infringing on people's rights when we have opt out scenarios. They unwittingly continue to subscribe to pay when they should not do so. In this case, icon unlike Baroness Coffey, who politely said she was surprised by this amendment by the government, this proposal by the government, I am shocked because some noble Lords and Baronesses on government benches have as much knowledge of human rights and the equality of... The European convention as I do, and under article 11, there is a right to free association.

We are guaranteed the right to associate freely and the right to not be compelled into supporting associations or little causes -- political causes. This is the subject of a number of decisions in the European Court of Human Rights and to my knowledge at the moment, I know the Prime Minister has tentatively talked about whether we remain as mention of the ECHR, but for the time being we are and we must abide by those laws and those decisions. The European has made clear in a UK decision called Young, James and Webster in 1981 that compelled little donations are incompatible with article 11 unless agreed and informed consent is given by the individual.

There may be those on the government benches who are thinking that is fine because it is covered by a period of notice and then the person can opt out, but it doesn't because there is no mechanism at all in the government proposal to facilitate the refund. I'm grateful to Lord Prentis. There is no refund mechanism. It is the case that there is no refund mechanism and the way they are currently drafted is that there is a minimum notice period for an individual to be notified of their rights to opt out up to eight weeks.

After that, there is one payroll cycle allowed before the opt out place. That means there is a possibility of three months subscription or levy being taken from an individual employee contributing to the Labour Party as it is, and let's not beat about the bush, this is compelled donation to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a political party... If the honourable lady permits an intervention, as Lord Prentis intervention, as Lord Prentis mentioned in his remarks earlier, there are 48 unions affiliated to there are 48 unions affiliated to the TUC. 13 of them also affiliate and subscribe and fund and make contributions to the funding of the contributions to the funding of the Labour Party. 35 do not. Most of Labour Party. 35 do not. Most of those 35 have a political fund which they use to support campaigning and they use to support campaigning and not to make contributions to the Labour Party.

Labour Party.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for that assistance and I would like to exempt those 13 given the law that I am explaining and the attack on this freedom to be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a freedom of association that should be maintained in this country. I wonder if the noble lady would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wonder if the noble lady would permit me to intervene. She spoke about article 11 of the European and about article 11 of the European and the freedom of association and the the freedom of association and the right to join a trade union for protection of interest as spout out protection of interest as spout out in article 11.1. She mentioned the case of Young, James and Webster against the United Kingdom. That against the United Kingdom. That established that there is a negative right not to become a member of a right not to become a member of a trade union as well as a positive right to become a member of a trade union.

The European Court of Human union. The European Court of Human Rights has never held in any case that a member of an organisation, that a member of an organisation, political party or trade union can opt out of some particular payment that that organisation is making.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to my noble friend for his intervention but he is actually wrong because the European has ruled it is not possible. has ruled it is not possible. Article 11 does not permit compelling any member of this country, any citizen of this country, any citizen of this country, or any member of a trade union to make a payment by political association. It is simply not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

correct. Go ahead. Let me put it more respectfully.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Let me put it more respectfully. I disagree. That is not what the prudence of the ECHR on article 11 prudence of the ECHR on article 11 demonstrates. There is no right. If demonstrates. There is no right. If you are a member of the Royal Society of the protection of birds to opt out of any contribution that to opt out of any contribution that makes any expenditure on any particular objective, there is no such right established under article 11. You can opt out of being a member of the organisation but you can't opt out of what it has decided to spend its money on.

Or you can do is exercise your rights under its constitution to object or decide to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

spend it on something else. Very respectfully, the noble Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very respectfully, the noble Lord is making interventions that do not follow the law and I will quote a couple of other cases because that couple of other cases because that may assist. There is one in Iceland, Sorensen in Denmark, freedom of association... You can join, the association... You can join, the association... You can join, the noble Lord could join the RSPB and whether or not he opt out is not a whether or not he opt out is not a matter of subject for debate.

We are talking about the freedom to join a trade union. You are asking. We are trade union. You are asking. We are talking about the asking of people who have signed up to be a member of a trade union to contribute to a trade union to contribute to campaigning funds, political funds, campaigning funds, political funds, and it is that political association, the taking of funding for that political association which

**** Possible New Speaker ****

infringes on article 11 right. The cases do not demonstrate that. I have to tell you and I suggest perhaps you might read the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

cases again. I understand in this House it is sometimes the case that people sometimes the case that people disagree and perhaps respectfully that is happening here. If I can that is happening here. If I can give way as many times as he would like, but it is quite plain from the caselaw and from the jurisprudence caselaw and from the jurisprudence of how article 11 is taught at law school where I have guessed taught school where I have guessed taught it.

-- guest. That is how it is it. -- guest. That is how it is applied. The freedom of association applies like that. I am going to move to the fact that there is no refund mechanism because after an opt out has been introduced there is no refund mechanism available to cover the period during which the funds will be taken by 13 trade unions and passed to the Labour Party. That at least we are now agreed on that 13 of the unions will be giving it to the Labour Party.

In those circumstances, we are compelling people to support. It is because the Human Rights Act, the European Cup, jurisprudence, intervened as part of the conversations when the opt in was considered. When we look at the contributions, financial or otherwise, in the period of time, I'm grateful to the noble Lord Prentis for drawing our attention to the decrease in political funding that has an seed because of the change. We know that that is why there is a need for the change to be made back, but it does not make it In March 2018 when the opt in change was made 86% dropped by 2022 to 71%.

4.6 million of those who were opting out were opting in at 3.8 million. That was in 2022. The next stage is not available until the middle of this yeah. That data is a drop of 800,000 people. The average levy, average political levy is 10, average political levy is £10 scanning the unions. It may be that I have not scanned the exact 13, but nonetheless the points stand regarding political campaigning and I would be grateful to the baroness Fox for drawing your attention to those points.

Those are big sums of money and I have heard and respect the points made by the Noble Lord Prentice, but nonetheless it is not a reason to change the fundamental a reason to change the fundamental democratic right not to have to give money where there would be no mechanism in this two refund. It is, of course, open to the Government to create that mechanism and ensure that the money is refunded. That has not been contemplated and not been put into the bill.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I was around when Lord Burns was chairing his committee and was involved in some of the work that involved in some of the work that was done and so we appreciated from was done and so we appreciated from the union side very much the work the committee did with his colleagues. It was a get out of jail
19:18
Lord Monks Portrait Lord Monks (Labour)
-
-
colleagues. It was a get out of jail card for us, getting that kind of arrangement in the House that is still promoted, and we were aware in 1927 that the Conservative Government introduced opting in instead of opting out with a catastrophic fall in the number of people that contributed to the union political front. That was not true for the unions with the superstructure to good people into that kind of arrangement. 1927, that was repealed by the Labour Government, I believe such was the anger it was about the first one that did, and the Attorney-General unwisely said we are the masters now, and that caused a lot of controversy, so this is about the party funding and the sinews of keeping them going, a great party under a lot of pressure from all kinds of people.

Very pleased, I would say, and we warmly welcome the work that Lord Burns did. We have made an offer that may be all political party funding should be looked at, if there was some uneasiness about aspects of labours arrangement, and certainly some uneasiness about the Conservative party is arrangements which were not noted for their clarity and awkwardness and all other things that has been extolled as virtues that they try to install into the union. And we hear a lot from the Conservative party about deregulating business all over the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

place. I would just like to read the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would just like to read the point out about oral medical donations have to be transparently declared and I have my Noble Friend declared and I have my Noble Friend sitting next to me to continue to explain more from the Conservative

**** Possible New Speaker ****

explain more from the Conservative party that they are all declared. I think them for their clarity

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think them for their clarity and the Conservative party funding it would all be enlightened by the explanation that is about to come. But we are talking about an amount. Sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sorry. With great respect after 10 years that transparency and clarity in the that transparency and clarity in the Conservative party leaves something to be desired. Can you please be specific about this?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will not be specific about it because I do not want to generally insult people, but over the years, there have been some dodgy funding of the Conservative party. And maybe some things have been done about it and maybe it has not put will tell and maybe it has not put will tell us in a moment, I am sure. Let me just say the amount of money we are talking about, and Baroness Cash talking about, and Baroness Cash touched on, but in 2016 when I was on with this debate much more than I on with this debate much more than I am today the contribution that that am today the contribution that that member made the Labour Party was not member made the Labour Party was not much more than the price of 8.0 BR.

It has gone up a bit if it is £10 It has gone up a bit if it is £10 now, but it was a modest amount and comparisons to the financial services is the Noble Lord Jackson said earlier on, the sums of money we are talking about there are much greater and refunds and all the rest of it, but that kind of administrative fee that we require for that amount of donation seems to be a bit ridiculous, so very much on this side to restore some Labour Party funding streams.

I am, anyway. I will not speak for the Frontbench, but I think it is important that the Labour Party get the funding that they require. Going back to 1940 1945, 46, and so on, I believe, is the right way to go, so I support the Government and I support the bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I would apologise for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I would apologise for not having spoken at second reading and I have been watching with great and I have been watching with great interest and as chairman of the Conservative party I am delighted that today we announced record funds, donations, into the Conservative party. And none of Conservative party. And none of those donations were false, none of them were given to us because we compel people to give them to us
19:23
Lord Johnson of Lainston Portrait Lord Johnson of Lainston (Conservative)
-
-
compel people to give them to us they were given to us because we are an administrative system that prevented people from taking their money and opting out because people voluntarily wanted to support the cause that we stand for. And on the same day we announced records in the system might Noble Friend the Labour Party also saw significant donations as well, not substantially to the level of the Conservatives but a number of unions I think of the donations came from a number of individuals, including from the south and Lord Ali who I cannot see in his place but continues to support the Labour Party there is a good lesson for opiates to support the parties who foster them.

The point is in our democracy will ever next ordinary country were voluntary contributions make up how our parties are funded. And in essence if you distort those, I think you have enormous problems with how the public perceive politics. And the responsiveness of political parties actually to show to the public who support them in the first place. Now, I am a proponent of the union movement and I think it is an essential element of capitalism and ensures there is balance between the Labour cabinet.

But if you distort that and you distort the economy need almost always actually to the negligence of those members. And I was very surprised the reason I had not spoken before was it had not occurred to me, actually, the sort of damage this Government is trying to do to this country. And I could not believe that it was going to be the case and I had to sit in these debates and read back transcripts that people would be compelled effectively, to find that Labour Party or to contribute to it and we have just heard from the Noble Lord who said exactly this, this is absolutely about redressing the balance in terms of party funding and to fund the Labour Party.

Either way, I respect that the unions paid for a Labour victory and now they want to have their message or legislation moulded in their way, that is brutal politics and frankly I am a bit squeamish about it but I rather admire it, but I would like to ask that noble Baroness the Minister is it really true that you were expecting people to be compelled to donate to a political fund? And there is no mechanism for some form of compensation or redress if they decide to opt out? And is it true, this is remarkable, that in a world where we can subscribe instantly to people and to music or whatever it is at the touch of a button, and in fact rightly so, we are compelled to ensure that people subscriptions are reviewed on a constant basis, this is certainly the absolute minimum and probably quarterly maybe even monthly, this mechanism will be reviewed, it cannot be true, but is it true that cannot be true, but is it true that you are proposing 10 years before people can see whether or not they should review their paperwork for a subscription to a political fund? I am actually amazed at the audacity, and I certainly admire it, as I said if we want to have a strong democracy and her political parties that actually have trust placed in them by the people of this country, this sort of chicanery and gerrymandering is, I think, extremely dangerous.

The amendments had been proposed by crossbenchers are exceptionally imminent in the sense of making sure that we have a sense of making sure that we have a fair system to ensure that unions can, indeed, represent themselves politically. They can, and should, build political funds to advance their aims. And some of the games that they have advanced over the last century or so are there and I applaud them but dismissed not be a mechanism for compelled donation to the Labour Party. The outcome of that would be a disaster for a democracy and it would not benefit about unions and will not help our country in anywhere at all, and that is why I speak to these amendments today.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to support the amendments and to congratulate that speakers today in particular Lord
19:27
Lord Leigh of Hurley Portrait Lord Leigh of Hurley (Conservative)
-
-
speakers today in particular Lord Burns. And I do recall the debate some 10 years ago. I declare or it has been declared for my senior treasurer of the Conservative party and have been so for very many years. The last time when we had this debate it was, shall we say, feisty. I was intervening 12 times in one speech which might be a bit of a record. But it was a constructive debate, and I believe a solution was agreed.

They set as a get out of jail to the unions, but we wanted more, we wanted it to not just be to new members, to existing members, but a compromise was agreed that we felt was fair. And I hope in the spirit of this debate they reflect on his remarks and finds an opportunity to withdraw in the suggestion that there is anything dodgy or unclear about the political of our party and the same allegations of his party because it is not the case.

There is strict legislation on those donations and we are very careful to abide by them. And the world is an upside down sort of world because in actual fact the single largest donations of the Labour Party is not from the unions, it is from one individual person who came to this country, made a lot of money, and chose to give money to the Labour Party. Good luck to him and to those and actually I think we take Lord Johnson's point, we should commend and thank those people who wish to contribute to this country in whatever form they choose to do so, going up and down the streets waving leaflets in Birmingham or choosing to give finance to their good citizens to whom we own a debt of citizens to whom we own a debt of gratitude.

And the other upside down world of course is Baroness O'Grady's comments about shareholders and probably companies, in fact, have an opt in system. Every year, not every 10 years, every yeah, shareholders have to vote for donations to be made to a party if their company wishes to do it, so there is, if you like, another opt in for public companies, not that many make donations to any political party, although it is in the last submissions companies have chosen to give them to the Labour Party and good luck to them.

The history lesson we have had is appropriate and relevant because there is an element of to-ing and fro-ing. And this highlighted problems that had been in the existence before the then 2016 act and it is worth reminding ourselves of those problems because we want to see them again. We were told, the Burns commission was told that the deal that existed between the Thatcher Government and the TUC had not been fulfilled. And too many unions had relied, had failed to ensure that all union members were always aware of the fact that they did not need to contribute to the political fund.

The Government submitted written evidence that added that many unions that have a political fund are not transparent with members and their membership subscription about the existence of a political fund, and there tries to act out of the fund or contributing to local members contribution to the fund was not made clear. And it stated that of the 25 unions in those days that had political funds, 12 did not mention on this obstruction from the existence of a political fund and that of the 11 that did reference a political fund, five did not make it clear there was a right to opt out.

So, that was then and that is not the situation, I do not think, anyone would want to see come back, but there is a danger in this legislation if it does come in this legislation if it does come Many of these amendments are needed because the Burns Report highlighted that 7/10 trade unions with political funds in the UK made no reference at all for the right to opt out on membership forms and only one in 10 made clear choice on the opt out.

It was buried on the website. It was not clear on the forms. That takes me to the amendments that talk about the opt in or opt out. From the TUC evidence in or opt out. From the TUC evidence of the Burns report, it is clear the significant variation on how unions decide to convey the opt out information to their members, in some instances it was on the membership form and in others it wasn't. It would be good to see a consistency of information to all members.

We come to clause 77. This is one of the most important parts of the groups of amendments. As Lord Prentis said, it is not just a political fund but also ape campaigning fund and as many of the campaigns are seen to be excellent campaigns, which we would all applaud, but there may be some elements of the campaigning fund that some would not be so happy to see. Up until the 2016 act, this was not disclosed and I had the accounts of the union in the chamber at the time last time we debated it and there was no reference to where the money was spent at that time.

The 2016 act reversed that and my reading of this bill is the officer will no longer receive details of how the money is spent and that will not be available to members. They are giving if they are happy for their money to be given to a political fund, but according to the Chief Executive of the Labour Party, 54% of the fund was used for other purposes, roughly half was used for campaigning. That's fine, but there should be complete transparency and clarity about where this money is going and there is not transparency or clarity and their are members of the Labour front bench tonight who may be interested to know that the campaign was financed by unions quite extensively.

Nearly all of the unions financed the campaign. Political members giving money in good faith. I strongly urge the clause 77 is repealed and steps are taken to make sure that every penny spent by political funds is revealed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to all union members. I support the amendment of Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I support the amendment of Lord Burns and also the seeking of greater transparency for trade union greater transparency for trade union members as to where the money goes. members as to where the money goes. I would like to support the status I would like to support the status quo so that people have to opt in as we saw with the changes made in
19:35
Baroness Lawlor Portrait Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)
-
-
we saw with the changes made in 2016. I do so because these are moderate amendments. They don't introduce the status quo, they don't attack the political fund, which is as is often announced on the campaign and I agree that this is made clear certainly by Unison and Unite to new members joining as well as other fees. Certainly, it is clear to the public that some members are affiliated to the Labour Party and some of those funds of little campaigning will indeed go to the late party -- Labour Party.

I had the figure of 11 in my head. It is just a small difference. None of that is under attack. That is another debate. What I would like to stress to you and why I support Lord Burns is that this is an area which has been very contentious for a century and every single attempt to reach compromise has reached a settlement that involved compromise. You might think the opting in You might think the opting in arrangement of the 1927 act was against the interest of the trade unions, one has to remember that that was in the wake of the great general strike of 1926 and the Conservative party which was the party of government and would not follow the inclination of many backbenchers and one of its frontbenchers, I won't say, to get rid of the political fund.

No, because the Prime Minister of the day saying we will not fire the first shot. This was an attempt to find a compromise so trade unions could keep the political fund, continue to contribute to the Labour Party which was a founder party, recognised by the Conservatives, and continue to campaign on the issues they judged important for their members. They have done great work through their membership fees, in pensions and so on, and much of the settlement on the national insurance system true on not only trade union knowledge of experience and practice, but there funds in nationalising which was a less good idea.

We are, we should be in a spirit of compromise and I reflect the compromise made in 2016 because if we go down the route which the government proposes, I have no doubt that I hope the party on my side will again seek to bring a compromise because the laws in this Parliament should be made in the interest of transparency of all those affected by them and if that goes for trade unionists in the workplace who should have to opt out...

Opt in to a scheme in the interest of transparency, and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support the amendment. I will be extremely brief because

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will be extremely brief because I believe the dinner hour is upon us and there are strangers in the and there are strangers in the House. The important regarding the funds, this group of amendments funds, this group of amendments raises questions about raises questions about proportionality. We have notable higher thresholds of resolutions with annual members rather than those voting. We have resolutions every five years which is a
19:39
19:40
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
been. 14 noble Lords have participated, starting with Baroness Coffey, who really dealt particularly with clause 58 whereas most of the rest of the debate has been around clause 59. I am very grateful to Lord Burns because I think his speech dominated the debate as he set out so clearly the history of what I think he described as the 2016 compromise which in fact it was which now clause 59 six to overturn. Seeks. We need to talk about the importance of campaigning and seeing full participation in that area.

I am grateful to my noble friend coming especially on her birthday to remind us all the role she played on the burns Committee and I do think despite interruptions she got across a series of key points on the compromise. Those who were interrupting her seem to realise that shareholders have to approve any political donations made by companies, but never mind. We move on quickly to Baroness Fox of Buckley, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, Baroness cash who had a fascinating exchange with Lord Hendy and I do have to say to Lord Hendy speaking now as a practising lawyer that Baroness cash is right.

If money is taken, if money is taken for any period without knowledge or consent, freedom of association has been removed. It does not matter if it is for a week, a month or a decade, but in a way that was a side issue and then Lord Monks took us way back in time and we all benefit... And I still have that guilty feeling that I caused a cartoon in the Guardian to be shown of him getting into bed with me, but his was a face on a huge carthorse and I was Secretary of State for employment and I was being accused by the Guardian of being too nice to the trade union movement by getting into bed with Lord Monks.

We are not in the same bed tonight. And then, of course, we heard from Lord Johnson who put the record straight and really did elevate these sort of smears that were usually from a sedentary position thrown from the party opposite in context and also Lord LEA did the same as did Baroness Lawlor. I do thank Lord Goddard of Stockport for really trying to encapsulating what has been a complicated, detailed debate. Let's be clear on one thing and it is up to the noble Baroness the Minister to respond to all of the points.

The very valid points raised. Clause 59 of this bill says workers will be presumed to consent to union political contributions unless they actively opt out. This is a fundamental shift. It reverses the presumption of consent in a way that would never be tolerated were it an employer imposing such terms on a worker. Where then is the government concern for free choice, for transparency and the dignity of the individual to act without coercion? Surely if we are to be consistent in protecting worker autonomy, we should apply the same standards to trade unions as we do to employers.

If it is not proportional it is partisanship. Amendment 28 includes provisions requiring employers with written statements outlining trade union rights on day one of employment and at other points the government sees fit. Until amendment 218 comes through, that appears to vanish entirely so far as political fund contributions are concerned. They can be enrolled into reunion and begin contributing to political causes, most often aligned with one single political party without ever being clearly and directly told what that money supports or how to stop contributing.

I believe that to be a serious democratic deficit. Amendment 218 B strongly requires trade unions to maintain a simple, accessible and clearly described process for members to opt out Timid man seeks to address those challenges head on, just by requiring unions to ensure that the opt out process is simple, easy to find, and does not place an undue burden on members, but at least one user-friendly digital option is available, reflecting the ways people communicate today, and that the process is clearly described and easy to locate, so members are not left guessing where to go or who to contact, and that the system is regularly tested and maintained to ensure it actually works.

And across the realm of the Certification Officer in providing guidance in setting technical standards will help to ensure these requirements are not just words on paper but are effectively implemented and Amendment 218C which I also strongly support, that seems to protect union members from many detrimental actions or pressure when they exercise their right to opt out of contributing to political funds. So, if you then turn, as I must, to Amendment 218 to Amendment 218D while we do not support the broader day one right agenda presented in this bill, it is important to call out the inconsistency if such rights are to be introduced selectively.

If the Government insists on imposing day one information requirements on workers when it is only logical and fair that this principle extends to union members rights regarding political fund contributions. The right to opt out is a fundamental choice, yet too often members will find themselves automatically enrolled in political funds without being properly informed. And then, finally, an amendment to 23B, that would empower the Certification Officer to conduct audits of trade unions to access plans with political fund opt out rules, where non-compliance is found Certification Officer must issue directions to remedy any failures within this specific timeframe.

This will all comeback in conclusion to the very key Amendment 217. I believe Lord Burns made a compelling believe Lord Burns made a compelling argument that all of us should think very carefully before we seek to negatively opt out of a consensus view that was reached as we understand it from Lord Burns unanimously so far as any future members of trade unions were concerned. What could be more prepared than that? We would with great interest to hear what the noble Baroness the Minister is going to say, but I, personally, found the arguments of Lord Burns to be as compelling now as they were in 2016.

compelling now as they were in 2016.
19:49
19:49
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
Noble Lord for their constructive engagement that we have had on the topic of political funds in recent weeks and for his thoughtful contributions in this debate. I echo the points that a number of noble Lords have made on that and I am also grateful for his considerable work in sharing the committee of the trade union and political party funding in 2016 and I also am grateful to the Noble Lady for her work on that committee. However, the government's view is that the political fund changes brought in by the Trade Union Act 2016 had the impact of limiting unions ability to raise funds to enable them to campaign on political issues that were important to them, and therefore as we begin debating the bill repeals the requirement for trade unions to opt out their members from contributions to political funds unless they have expressly opted in.

This will mean you trade union bus will be automatically opted in unless they expressly decide to opt out. With the quote on avoiding tit-for-tat in parliamentary democracies, however what we are proposing is broadly restoring the position before the passage of the Trade Union Act 2016 and which had been in the position and which had been in the position for a previous 70 years, so our proposal is very long-standing set of propositions. And I should also say to the noble Lords that the change we are proposing would only apply to new members of trade unions with current opt out status of existing members remaining unchanged.

Several noble Lords have described this as being both compelled to make a political to the Labour Party. This is simply not the case. It remains a decision and if each individual trade union member that they are free to make as to whether they wish to contribute to any political fund on a trade union. This Government has been mindful of the conclusions of the trade union funds and party funding committee and indeed we have learned lessons from the report and I can assure the Noble Lord burns and others that we have been careful to draft the bill to ensure that new members will continue to be notified of their right to opt out with the membership form that they will have to fill in when they joined the union.

In line with the recommendation in the Noble Lord committees report they will have to make it clear that opting out will not affect other aspects of their membership. And these changes to the system that existed before 2016 should help to address concerns that trade union members were not always aware of their right to opt out of the political fund. Unions will also be required to send an opt out reminder to their members on a 10 year basis. We have been clear of our intention to substantially repeal the Trade Union Act 2016, as set out in our makework pay plan.

Retaining the automatic opt out as proposed by this amendment to maintain unnecessary burdens and requirements on the way the trade unions manage their political funds. And I would say, and I should have responded earlier to the Noble Lord burns one of his other questions about impact on the government's impact assessment, so the Government impact assessment and the repeal of Trade Union Act set out that the opt out option for political contributions for new members with political funds may increase the proportion of new members contributing to the political fund in those unions, so we have made an assessment of that.

And could I also say to the Noble Lord Jackson and the Noble Lady Baroness Cash and others that what we are proposing is clearly not the same as consumer spending millions of pounds each week on unwanted subscriptions due to unclear terms and conditions and complicated cancellation words. What we are proposing here is the union that is a collective of workers and political firms should be considered in that light. If a union has a political fund its members have control over how their political fund is spent through the democratic structures of the union.

Unions put considerable effort into raising engagement in the democratic processes, which any member is free to participate in, meaning that they are able to decide how their political fund is used. And I and grateful to my Noble Friend Lord Prentis for reminding us and indeed giving us some very good examples of how the political fund is being used in campaigning, and he also made the point, and others have made the point, that less than half of the unions who have political funds actually affiliated to the Labour Party.

Indeed, only a minority of Labour Party funds in the last election came from the union's election came from the union's political funds. Speaking to amendments to hundred and 21, 222, 223 and 223 a and 220 3B, tabled by the Noble Lord shop, section 84 eight specifies that the union must send information notices required to their members as of the right to opt out in contributing to the union's political fund, should one exist. Amendment 22 one, 22 two, 220 two, 223 would introduce the requirement on trade unions to send those notices to members every two years as opposed to every 10 years, as specified in the bill.

We acknowledge that removal of the tenure political fund valets could tenure political fund valets could reduce awareness among trade unions and their right to opt out of the political fund contributions. This is why we amended the bill to require that union sent opt out reminders on a 10 year basis. The Government believes that 10 years strikes the appropriate balance between maintaining awareness amongst members, their right to opt out of contributing to a political fund, while minimising the administrative and cost burdens of unions on providing such a notification.

It also reflects current arrangements of the 10 yearly review pallets and recognises that the bill will ensure new members will already have been made aware of their right to opt out from nearby union membership. Turning to amendment 223 a of this amendment would require unions to issue opt out information notices that comply with specific requirements. The bill would require that unions issue opt out notices that comply with the rights of the union. Unions must provide the certification officer with a copy of their opt out notice.

Members of a trade union will be able to complain to the Certification Officer if they do not believe in opt out notice complies with section 84 a of the trade union labour consolidation 1992. In the circumstances they can offer an order to remedy this behaviour if a complaint is upheld, so this amendment is unnecessary as there is already a requirement of the opt out notices and this would grant the Certification Officer to conduct audits with 84 a of the trade union audits with 84 a of the trade union act 1992 as amended by the bill and with this would allow the Certification Officer to investigate complaints to members about the failure to comply with 80 4A, but the power to conduct audits is unnecessary and disproportionate to the rest of the powers of the certification officer who will continue to hold their powers after the repeal of the Trade Union Act.

Turning to amendment 18 by the Noble Lord shop this would require trade union members to confirm their ongoing willingness to contribute to a political fund on an annual basis and they would need to be given an annual notice on their right to opt out of the political fund. As I mentioned, we required them to issue opt out reminders to members every 10 years is proportionate underlines with the current frequency of 10 year review pallets. The Government also believes that members who join the union under notified of their right to opt out their decision not to opt out clearly reflects their consent to make political fund contributions.

Asking members to reconfirm the political fund on an annual basis would impose an unnecessary burden on members. Indeed, members are currently required to be stating on a regular basis their preference to opt in or opt out of the political fund contributions. Turning to amendment 218 B in the name of the Noble Lord shop, this amendment would alter section 84 to require unions to provide members with a defined means of opting out in political fund contributions, including a digital option and allowing the Certification Officer to issue guidance or prescribe technical standards in the opt out notice.

We are already clear in the buildup members of the trade union are able to serve and be served in opt out notice by a person of an electronic notice by a person of an electronic form or other such electronic means as has been prescribed, therefore we are already making it easy and straightforward for members to express their decision to opt out, should they so desire. The Certification Officer already issues a set of normal rules for political funds and the rules of every union's political fund must be approved by the certification officer.

Amendment 280 Seaward create a statutory right for members not to suffer any detriment when deciding to opt out of the political fund contributions and it would allow members to campaign to the Certification Officer when they feel that right has been breached. Such an amendment is unnecessary given that section 82 of the trade union relation consolidation act 1992 already compels unions to inform members if there union rules that the should not be in place at a disadvantage or disability compared to other union members, nor would they be excluding the benefits if they decide not to contribute to the political fund.

Members can also complain to the certification officer if that rule is breached. Turning to amendment 280 D, this amendment would require unions to issue an opt out reminder and the date of members joined the and the date of members joined the In clause 69 of the bill, we will be requiring unions to inform members of their right to opt out of the political fund contribution on any forms including electronic funds that members must complete in order to join a union.

This makes the need for new members to join superfluous. Turning to amendment 219 and 220 tabled by Lord Jackson, section 84 stipulates a union must send opt out information notices to members within eight weeks of passing a resolution under section 73 of the Labour relations act to establish a political fund and with eight weeks of the tenured period thereafter. This is the current arrangement around opt out information notices whereby unions are required to issue notices within the annual return to the certification officer, and is reasonable to grant a grace period in which they distribute reminders to members in an eight week period following that in the 1992 act.

following that in the 1992 act. Turning to amendment 216 YC and YD. Clause 58 of the bill amends the trade unions and Labour following the passing of a political resolution every 10 years to maintain political funding. The proposal in amendment 216 yc would reverse the effect of clause 58 and require a majority of union members to vote in favour of a political resolution rather than a simple majority currently required. The government considers these tenured review ballots to be an unnecessary and onerous requirement.

It reverses the effect of clause 58 and in addition would require all union members to vote in favour of a political resolution rather than the simple majority is currently required to maintain the political fund. There is no instance of members choosing not to maintain political funds through this arrangement. Unions have their own democratic structure that members can utilise if they oppose the existence of the political fund. It requires a majority of all members to vote in favour of the political resolution goes beyond the current passing of a political resolution and is also an unreasonable requirement to impose on unions.

requirement to impose on unions. Amendment 216 yd and they hold regular review ballots as they maintain the political fund instead of holding these every 10 years this amendment requires unions to hold these every five years. The government opposes review ballots for the reasons I have given. This goes beyond the current arrangements and places greater obligations on members than is currently the case. No political fund has ever been closed by members as a result of the review ballots and we feel that they are unnecessary.

Turning to amendment 218 A tabled by Baroness Coffey, it provides details of the opt out notice that members can provide if they don't want to make contributions to the fund. This alters the relevant day on which the opt out notice takes effect from being... After being issued as a member of a trade union already having a political fund in place it provides opt out notices to take a vote on the subsequent first of January after it is issued by the member.

I believe that this amendment requires them to be immediate. But for the first of January date reflecting what is put in place prior to the introduction of the Trade Union Act 2016. To reiterate, we are committed to repealing the act and it is the intention to return to the situation as it was prior to 2016. Opt outs taking effect on the first of January provides clarity in regards to the political fund and they are able to make best use of those funds and tables and administrative process.

Where a new political resolution is passed to establish a new school fund for the first time, opt out notices come into effect on the date the notice is given. These are not supported by the government. Political fund measures will simplify the processes and avoid imposing burdensome requirements on unions and members and we believe the amendments are disproportionate, overly bureaucratic and impede ability to plan for future activity. If I speak to clause 77 and the opposition from Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt.

It intends to repeal the amendments of Trade Union and Labour Relations Act. Section 12... Clause Relations Act. Section 12... Clause 77 looks to... And thereby removing the requirement for trade unions to include specific information about political expenditure on their annual return to the officer. This information must be provided where a union spends on the political fund. Subsection to remove section 32 ZB from the 1992 act which outlines that the information that needs to be included in the annual return on expenditure.

Other subsections made further amendments to the 1992 act which is consequential on the removal of 30 TZ B such as enforcement or application of the association. As I said to Baroness Coffey, and others, trade unions still have to report to the sensitive vision -- certification officer. This includes reporting on income and expenditure of the political fund but the specific information on the fund introduced by Trade Union Act that will be required. Additionally, all political party will be subject to the reporting requirements set out in the political party elections and referendum act 2000 which requires certain donations to be recorded and reported.

I hope Lord Goddard and other noble Lords...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Lord -- lady clarify by removing the amendment, union removing the amendment, union members will have absolutely no idea as to whether campaign money is being spent.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thought I had answered that. The information on the expenditure on the political fund needs to be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

given to the certification officer. Would union members have clarity

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would union members have clarity as to where their money was being spent? I am absolutely confident that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am absolutely confident that union accounts which will include political funds will be available to political funds will be available to all members in the usual way. I'm sure that is a requirement.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Could I inform the noble Lord that every year unions have to produce an executive report for the produce an executive report for the membership and that is available to all membership on the website and most unions have the executive report which is the first thing that report which is the first thing that is debated at conference. All activities and expenditure are described and explained to the described and explained to the membership including the amount of political fund and expenditure of political fund and expenditure of the political fund, same with the international fund and campaigning.

international fund and campaigning. This is a requirement of unions as part of its democratic process to make it accountable to the membership and the information is contained in the executive report.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am sure the Minister will agree that if that is true, it wasn't in true before 2016, there is no resistance to it being included. They are not the same as the union accounts. The political funding accounts did not specify where campaign funds were spent.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question you asked is where would the members get the would the members get the information. That is the question to information. That is the question to which I have replied. You are now saying they are not disclosed in another place that is not the question I was answering.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think we have answered that question in quite a lot of detail question in quite a lot of detail now. I hope noble Lords feel I have answered this in sufficient detail... detail...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

detail... We appreciate the detail she is going into, but a number of questions have not been answered. questions have not been answered. Would she undertake to write to noble Lords the answers to those other questions? My final question other questions? My final question to her is as I understand it, if the union member fails to opt out of contributing to the political fund on day one, is it then possible that they would be bound, not to have the opportunity to opt out again for 10 years? Could she clarify that?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am confident that they could opt out at any time and not just every 10 years. It is the reminder every 10 years. It is the reminder that goes every 10 years rather than the requirement to remain for 10 the requirement to remain for 10 years. I feel we have had a years. I feel we have had a detailed, long debate here and I'm tempted to answer questions raised. tempted to answer questions raised. If there are any outstanding issues that I've not managed to raise, I will write, but I ask Baroness will write, but I ask Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Coffey to withdraw her amendment. I would like to thank those who have contributed to this extensive debate and I think it is fair to say there are a number of issues where there are a number of issues where there is not agreement in the House on the nature of the legislation or the design of it. I thanked Lord Burns and I'm conscious that this is going over old ground, but he is right to resurrect it and put his concerns forward.

In terms of other aspects, exchanges between noble friends like Baroness Cash and Lord Hendy like any legal debate can come up with a winner, but I think it is fair to say paragraph 251 of the human rights memorandum that they specifically state implicit in article 11 is not applicable to the trade union fund. I thank the Minister who would be able to share the policy advice with regards to what is in brackets noting opt out will take effect on the first of January the following year.

I think that is why Baroness Cash was pressing this point about the fact that they would have to continue paying if that is not deemed within her perspective in what she believes in various judgements to be compatible, but that said, I'm sure we have answered this at report stage and it is my pleasure that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this is withdrawn. The amendment is withdrawn. Baroness Coffey, not moved. Clause 58 stand part of the bill? As many are of that opinion will say, "Content". Of the contrary, "not content". The contents have it. Clause 59, amendment 217, not moved. Clause 59, amendment 217, not moved. 218, Lord Sharpe, not moved. 218 218A, Baroness Coffey, not moved.
20:14
20:15
20:16
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I grateful to the Government for this opportunity to understand the statement in relation to the free school expansion rather better. I acknowledge the parents and children in receipt of Universal Credit will welcome the government's announcement, and I know that many across the House will welcome the review of the school food standards, but I would be grateful for the baroness to minister to clarify a number of points about how this change will work in practice. As the Noble Lady knows, transitional protections which were established in 2018 ensured pupils who were eligible for free school could keep them during Universal Credit rollout.

And this nearly doubled free school eligibility from 13.6% to 25.7%. The Department for Education has now announced these protections will end in September 2026. With the introduction of the new policy. It is not absolutely clear how many children will be affected by this. Doctor Tammy Campbell, director for early years inequalities and well-being policy Institute said, and I quote, to the best of our knowledge, the Department of education has not fully assess the number of children who will cease to be eligible for free school is as a result of the conclusion of transitional protections.

She added, it is possible that the extension of eligibility will largely serve to balance out the cessation of transitional protections. Rather than making significant numbers of children newly eligible. And I wondered whether the Minister could then confirm has the Department done such an assessment and if so, what are the figures that assessment revealed? And if it has not, when will that happen? Can she also clarify the position in relation to pupil premium funding? Since currently eligibility for free school is the gateway to pupil premium, and the pupil premium that was a significant achievement for conservative Liberal Democrat coalition elements provides £480 per primary school pupil and over £1000 per secondary school pupil.

And my understanding is that the Government initially said the link between the two would be broken, and then in the second announcement that the total amount would remain unchanged, so I just wondered, again, if the Noble Lady could confirm exactly the government's position on this, how this will work in practice and whether the Government is, indeed, committed to the full 3 billion or so pupil premium funding continuing. The Government announcement also included other important figures relating to child.

Including that this change will lift 100,000 children out of poverty again, I would be grateful if the noble Baroness the Minister could confirm a timescale for that change. I know that the Institute for Fiscal Studies has confirmed that in the longer term they believe the policy will lift 100,000 children out of poverty but they also cautioned that due to the phasing out of the transitional measures that I mentioned earlier that the short- term costs and benefits are likely to be far more limited, and Christine Parkinson associate director of the affair said we will not see anything like 100,000 children lifted out of poverty next year, so the question is how long does the Minister think it will take the Government to reach the target and how many children does she believe will be lifted out of poverty next yeah? And, finally, can the Noble Lady confirm how this policy applies to holiday activities and food funding? And, also, homeschooled transport.

Will schools and local authorities continue to receive pupil premium and homeschooled transport funding based on the existing free school threshold or the expanded criteria? reply.
20:20
Lord Storey Portrait Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
We have course welcome the Minister's statement, as we have heard over half a million more children would benefit from a free, nutritious meal every day, and the Government has estimated this will put about £500 back into parents pockets. In coalition, of course, as we have heard, we introduced a free meal for every key stage I pupil and prepared to expand this to Key stage II pupils, so this is an excellent use for parents and of course the children.

As primary school head teacher I was always concerned that the number of pupils and parents who did not take up their school free meal entitlement was quite alarming. Despite numerous letters to those parents, newsletters and all the rest, they still did not take their free meal entitlement, so that is why auto enrolment of free school at a national level ensures that every child gets the meal they are entitled to. Will the Government now follow the example of many successful local authorities in introducing or to enrol them for meals and if not, why not? Because, as we have heard from Baroness Barran, many vulnerable children spend many weeks not in school during the holidays.

All the Government take this opportunity to end holiday hunger and perhaps look at the feasibility of funding for meals during those school holidays. Children on free school, particularly those in more affluent areas, often feel embarrassed, stigmatised, and sometimes bullied because they are having free meals. Will the Minister sure the House that confidentiality will be maintained at all times for those that are entitled to a free meal? I realise that this statement for free school lunches is about free school lunches, but could the Minister also update us on the number of children receiving breakfast and the timescale of the rolling out of this for schools and the Minister is probably aware of the letter from a whole host of children's charities about the problems of free Brexit for those children with special educational needs which I have no doubt, will come under that schools well-being and schools bill.

We, on these benches, are pushing hard for this coalition of free school minute meals in school. It was in our manifesto. It is a victory for thousands of passionate campaigners and Government officials.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, when this Government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, when this Government came into office there were 900,000 poor children living in poverty than there had been when the Government there had been when the Government left office in 2010. This was a left office in 2010. This was a stain on our country. It was a terrible way for those children to live, preventing them from having live, preventing them from having what they needed day-to-day, and, of course, limiting their opportunities for the future. And that is why this Government has announced the biggest Government has announced the biggest expansion of free school eligibility in England in a generation, because in England in a generation, because we can and we must end the scourge of child poverty, and that is why we will give every child whose family is in receipt of Universal Credit the entitlement to free school
20:25
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
meals. That means not simply meals in mouths, but, crucially, money back in to the pockets of parents and families on an unprecedented and families on an unprecedented scale. It means that 500,000 more children per yeah will be entitled to free school, and it means in our response to the noble Ladies question that over the course of this Parliament, 100,000 children this Parliament, 100,000 children will be lifted out of poverty. To will be lifted out of poverty.

To respond to specific questions raised by the Noble Lady Baroness Barran, and could I perhaps commend her and could I perhaps commend her and could I perhaps commend her approach to asking questions to gain some confidence, to gain some elucidation, I hope, on that. An approach very different to that of shadow education secretary who did not allow the fact to get in the way of her tweeting completely erroneous information about the government's proposals. So, to respond to the specific questions raised by the Noble Lady, first of all we will be clear that transitional rules will now be extended to 2026 /1, of course, all children whose families are in receipt of Universal Credit will then be entitled to free school.

And at that point we will bring to an end the transitional protections which, of course, were put in place to protect entitlement, as Universal Credit rolled out. And, secondly, on the point about pupil premium, we will continue to spend the £3 billion that this Government will be spending on pupil premium and disadvantaged this year. In 2026, the total will remain at the same on the basis of the level of those that would have been entitled to free school.

Over the long-term, we will take action to consider the most appropriate way to distribute the funding necessary for responding to disadvantaged and supporting schools in a whole range of ways that they can use that and help to ensure that all children with disadvantages can succeed. On the point about the holiday activity point about the holiday activity fund, that also will remain at existing levels and enable local authorities as they already do to have the flexibility and the funding to ensure provision for children who need it, and on the entitlement to homeschooled transport, that will remain the same on the basis of the current eligibility criteria post 2026, so no children will lose their entitlement to homeschooled transport entitlements.

The Noble Lord story talked about the issue of take-up. First of all, I think it is likely to be the case that the simplicity of entitlement now being based on Universal Credit means it will be much clearer to families when they claim Universal Credit that that will automatically entitle them to free school. And, in addition to that, of course the Government is improving the ability, not only for local authorities but also for parents and families to be able to check their eligibility more clearly than they have been able to do up until this point.

do up until this point. Investing in free school, the entitlement to free school because we want children to be able to benefit from them, and, of course, we will keep under review the extent to which those free school sent all of the benefits that come with them are being taken up. Which they make the point about the stigma that some children and feel, of course I know all school should be and some schools are very careful about the way in which they identify which children are eligible for free school and which are not.

I think they have moved some way from the terrible times when those children are eligible for free school and had to sit at separate tables and all of the awful things that I know some people with experience will certainly have heard of, so, of course, schools will work hard to make sure that there is confidentiality and that stigma is removed, and on the point about breakfast clubs, we have, of course, from this April, been able to ensure that there are 750 early adopter breakfast clubs across the country, having significantly increased the investment in those breakfast clubs to £30 million and would be able, as to £30 million and would be able, as the Noble Lord says, to consider this at the further roll-out of breakfast clubs in more detail when we come to that part of the children's wellbeing and the schools, which, of course, will put into legislation this government's intention to ensure that all children in primary schools are able to benefit from breakfast clubs.

This considerable investment in our children is a significant sign of this government's commitment to tackling the scourge of child. It is, as the Prime Minister says, a is, as the Prime Minister says, a down claimant of the child's poverty strategy. And it is symbolic of the difference that a Labour Government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

makes. My Lords, I warmly welcome the extension of free school meals. It
20:30
20:31
20:33
20:33
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
have the opportunity to answer a question in this House on financial education. In schools. Of course agree with him that it's important that children develop the skills, the mathematical, the business skills to understand the decisions that they then need to make about their own and their family's money, and he makes an important point about pension contributions, notwithstanding his argument that young people should start from the age of 18 with their pension contributions. I'm not quite sure whether or not in primary school you can embed in a child's mind the significance of that, but he makes an important point about ensuring that people understand the importance of pensions, and of course hopefully those children will look to their grandparents and the additional funding that they will receive as a result of this governments ability to be able to maintain the triple lock, and they will see the investment in a pension

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is a good thing to do. I very much welcome today's statement. It's really good news and I particularly welcome the look at I particularly welcome the look at nutritional standards. We talked about resources in, but in education we use frees Camille's is a measurement, not only for money measurement, not only for money going into the school but for attainment levels. And that's become quite a considered and important way of monitoring performance and improvement. Has the government
20:35
20:35
20:36
20:37
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
course about the importance of the contribution to learning. I think it is hard to envisage how children can focus on the learning that needs to happen without having nutrition and good food inside them, but first thing in the morning from our breakfast clubs and of course as well available at lunchtime. I think the important point about the pupil premium as my Noble Friend will know very well is of course whilst it has been allocated and designated on the basis of individual pupils entitlement, it is spent within schools and a range of different activities, not attached to a single pupil.

And that's why I think the government will want to undertake some serious thinking about how to maintain and in fact improve the support that is available for schools where there is, or available for ensuring that children who come from disadvantaged backgrounds get the support in schools that they can without necessarily having to... Without depending any more in the long-term on the link to the entitlement to free school meals. Of course in the short-term not least because free school meal entitlement because free school meal entitlement based on the current criteria lasts for six years.

There will be a considerable amount of time when that could be used to allocate pupil premium, but there does need to be work in ensuring that that funding for disadvantaged can continue for students to be used as effectively as possible by schools.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

May join the congratulations to my Noble Friend and the government? This is very very good news. At a This is very very good news. At a time when good news is particularly welcome. I also welcome the welcome
20:39
20:40
20:42
20:56
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
60 60 stand 60 stand part 60 stand part of 60 stand part of the 60 stand part of the bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

60 stand part of the bill. Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I write to express my deep concern about the inclusion of the clause repealing section 116 B of the Trade Union and Labour Relations the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act of 1992. And to urge it be removed in its entirely deep in the bill. The clause does not merely tidy up legislation on Bondi's outdated provisions, it Bondi's outdated provisions, it seeks to dismantle a vital safeguard seeks to dismantle a vital safeguard that upholds the principle of taxpayer funds should not be used to subsidise the activities of private organisations no matter how long- standing or worthy those standing or worthy those organisations may be.

Section 116 B was introduced to ensure that where public sector employers agree to deduct trade union subscriptions directly from employees pay service commonly known as Chekhov, the administrative cost of doing so is reimbursed by the union. This is reasonable and proportionate reasonable and proportionate expectation. After all uniforms, unions are private membership unions are private membership organisations. It is not the role of the taxpayer to underwrite the cost of maintaining their finances, especially when alternative methods of payment such as direct debits are readily available and commonly used by the unions themselves.

Repealing this provision will effectively shift the cost burden for this private financial arrangement onto public sector employers and by extension, onto the taxpayer. These are costs that would no longer be recoverable whether they involve payroll staff time, IT systems or While each individual destruction might seem minor, across large public bodies for example the NHS or schools or local authorities or Whitehall departments, these costs accumulate. The public purse as noble Lords opposite don't need reminding -- reminding is ready under pressure and should not be expected to shoulder this additional financial responsibility.

There is a very real risk that this repeal however well-intentioned might result in taxpayers unknowingly subsidising trade union operations. Moreover section 116 introduced the level of accountability and into the system. And ensure that unions had to make active choices about how they collect their subscriptions and whether to invest in alternative systems like direct debit. It also gave employees greater awareness of and control over how they supported union activity. Removing this provision without putting any comparable mechanisms in place risks eroding that transparency.

It suggests a return to one-size-fits- all approach in which the employer bears the cost and the worker has little visibility of the arrangement. There is also the issue of equity. Public sector employers are distinct in that they are funded by the state and their accountability is to the taxpayer. In the private sector where Chekhov arrangement still exists, employers To negotiate terms of such arrangements including whether the cost should be reimbursed. Why should public employers uniquely be placed in a position where they must provide these services at their expense without any form of compensation, it is a contradiction that undermines the rationale for removing the section.

The proposed repeal would also remove the flexibility that currently exists in the system. Under section 116 B the Secretary of State has the power to make regulations specifying exemptions. Such as for devolved Administration saw specific categories of public body. That allows the provision to be adapted in a way that respected local autonomy, for example in Wales where different arrangements had been supported by the devolved government. By removing the entire provision this clause strips away the flexibility and imposes a blunt uniformity that doesn't respect the complexities of public -- public sector governance across the United Kingdom.

Finally we must consider the broader message this repeal the broader message this repeal sends because it risks creating the impression there are not that trade unions are being afforded preferential treatment, allowed to impose their operating costs onto the taxpayer without scrutiny at a time when public trust in institutions is fragile and when every pound of public spending is likely under the microscope, this is
21:00
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
And like to thank the Noble Lord Lord Sharpe for opposing arguments against clause 60 in the bill. This clause seeks to repeal section 15 of the trade Union act 2016 by amending the trade union consolidation act 1992 to remove section 116.B. Section 15 required trade unions to pay public sector employers where the administrative payroll deductions for trade union subscriptions known as Chekhov... Sorry, by the administer payroll deductions for trade Unionist prescriptions known as Chekhov.

Only made available where union workers had the ability to pay by other means. The deductions from wages in the public sector regulations 2024 were introduced as a cost saving measure with estimated annual savings of £1.6 million per year, totalling 12 million over the following 10 years. However, as the impact assessment acknowledged, the regulations would bring a cumulative cost of £70 million. To the public sector employers and trade unions over that period. So this is far higher than the estimated cost savings.

The current system places bureaucratic processes on both trade unions and public sector employers that can be so clearly simplified to support productive trade union relations. I should also say to Noble Lords that there should be no cost to employers associated with withdrawing the Chekhov regulations. Employers will have the choice to continue with or amend any agreed arrangements regarding the deduction of union subscriptions from their employees wages in discussion with their recognised trade unions. We do feel that there is a need to simplify this process, and that is what our proposals intend to do.

So was to thank the Noble Lord for this very short debate, I urge the Noble Lord to support this clause for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reasons I have set out. I think the nobility the Minister for her explanation. The have to say I'm not particular persuaded but for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now, thank you. The question is that clause 60 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content." The Of the contrary, "Not content." The contents have it. In clause 61 amendment 2 24 Lord Jackson of Peterborough.
21:03
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
Peterborough.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to a number of... I suppose you could call them probing amendments in respect of clause 61 tabled in my name. And as clause 61 tabled in my name. And as I alluded to earlier, I take the I alluded to earlier, I take the view that the amendments are not unhelpful. But that they should be unhelpful. But that they should be seen through the prism of fairness, balance and proportionality and balance and proportionality and reasonableness.

And I do think there is the possibility that as the bill is the possibility that as the bill is written at the moment, as it's is written at the moment, as it's drafted, it could be plausibly argued that the balance is very much argued that the balance is very much in favour of not just employees and union members but in favour of the union as corporate bodies and organisations themselves rather than employers. And we have discussed on a number of occasions.

We are now on the eighth iteration of this committee. The eighth day. The less than benign economic circumstances faced by many businesses and small businesses. And the situation is deteriorating. There is pretty much every week bad economic data or worse economic data than one would hope for. And particularly in respect of the jobs market and the level of employment and the potential level of unemployment. And therefore, anything that the government does and certainly this bill represents a very far-reaching change to the employment relations regime.

To make things more difficult for small and medium-sized enterprises and businesses generally to employ people as a cause of concern and should be the Members of the Lords chips House. So we just go then briefly through these amendments. Two to four would qualify them right for time off for officials with a reasonableness test. Now I can see that most relationships between employers and union representatives are positive relationships, and relationships based on mutual respect, and it was ever thus.

And therefore this won't be a problem for the vast bulk of employers, but having once been a local councillor, and having to rely on the employment protection consolidation act 1992, I think, to enforce my right to attend a number of meetings held in the day, in my case on Ealing Borough Council, but I was also actually an alternative the London Fire and civil defence authority across the road at County Hall. As a young man working for me was very difficult sometimes to get time off, and I understand that we went in the right direction in guaranteeing the right to time off.

But equally, reasonableness is a key. I do think that this amendment speaks to that. Amendment 2 24... I speaks to that. Amendment 2 24... I beg you pardon, it would, two to five would qualify the right for union officials with inappropriateness test. Again this reflects a real-world experience of the individual circumstances affecting the business at the time that the request is made. And it might not be appropriate for the provision of a room, the provision of audiovisual facilities, the provision of materials.

Which would be easy to provide for a big company which had a bespoke budget. For HR, training et cetera, and a much smaller commercial entity which might struggle to provide a similar level of facilities for trade union officials. Amendments to 26, two to seven and to do a would reverse the seven and to do a would reverse the burden of proof in respect of reasonableness time offer union activities, and therefore there would be much more of a balance as to making the case for facilities being provided.

I think the amendments, I don't want to delay the House at this relatively late junction. And they stand on their own merits I think is amendments. Amendment 2 hundred 29 would qualify the right time off for union learning representatives, again with a reasonableness test. And it did mention impulse debates and my admiration for the workers Association and the great work they did in empowering working people to improve their life and their life chances, and I think that's very very important but again a reasonableness test makes sure that it can be accommodated in a way which will not undermine the commercial viability of the business whilst at the same time assisting individual workers and their representatives in delivering education and training outcomes.

Amendment 2 hundred 30 would qualify the right to the provision of facilities for union learning representatives, again with inappropriateness test. And the final three, amendments to 31, 232 and T33 would reverse the burden of proof in respect to reasonableness of requested time off further union representatives, so would be for the union representatives to explain why then their request for facilities and for learning resources was reasonable rather than the other way round.

So these are as I say probing amendments. I know I've said it before, but it bears repetition that these are not wrecking amendments. They do not substantially change the kernel of the bill. Which is, to take ministers on their word, to improve the working lives of people as in the document working -- making work pay. I accept the premise that ministers sincerely want to do that these amendments are an attempt to rebalance between the workforce and the representatives and employees in a fair and equitable way, and on that basis, I'm happy to move

**** Possible New Speaker ****

formally the amendments. Amendment proposed clause 61, page 89 line 33 after the word take

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and insert the word reasonable. I rise to meet the question that
21:11
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
clause 62 should stand part of the bill with the intention of removing provisions that compel employers to take time off for trade union equality wraps. I'm not opposed equality wraps. I'm not opposed trade union facilities as per se. I'm not objecting to clause 6 to one in relation to learning reps. My concern is specifically on the nature of equality as it's been attempted by the trade unions in recent years. The divisive nature of its adherence to identity politics for example and the ideological contentious implementation of prescriptive policies often setting one group of workers against another.

Trade union priorities under the auspices of fighting for equality have been skewed to say the least. The wording in this unfeasibly long clause states that 12.B1 that equality means in relation to the workplace means the elimination of discrimination, harassment and victimisation in accordance with the Equality Act 2010. You think I would have nothing to disagree with their. Time after time in the last few years we've actually seen is discrimination and victimisation of women workers. That has been at best ignored and too often actively abetted by trade unions version of inclusive equality.

And they've in fact ignore the Equality Act. Let me use an example of an incident that happened in May 2024 at Epsom and St Helier University Hospital. A black female nurse, Jennifer Melanie indirectly called a six-foot transgender patient Mr while on the phone to a consultant. The patient who I will call Mr X was having treatment on the board having been transferred from a male prison. He was chained to two guards and Mr X is serving a sentence fair lowering young boys into sex acts on the internet while pretending to be a woman.

The nurse alleged Miss Gentry mistakes the conflict finally lunged at her, screaming do not call me Mr. I'm an F in woman and then caught out the N word and screamed at her, of course use the forwards in those instances and screamed those words attack three times. After her shift Jennifer went home shaken Brazilian about the reality of unpleasant abusive work. She was then contacted by hospital trust will stop you might think it was a welfare check, but no, there was no mention of support for the racist attack.

Instead she was issued with a written warning and the trust reported her to the nursing and midwifery Council to investigate her fitness to practice because she posed a risk to the public it set and the reputation of the NHS for not using the patient's preferred gender identity. Only when Jennifer went public and the story hit the media did the trust say they would investigate the racist abuse. But by then, they had suspended Jennifer then, they had suspended Jennifer telling her story.

Then they moved her to another hospital, demoted her to a lower grade, and she lost pay et cetera. Now I would have assumed that this shocking story would be a huge equality at work story for the trade union movement to take up. An ethnic minority female frontline health worker, a victim of explicit racist harassment and male violence, all over the papers, and then gross discriminatory employee behaviour. But no, not a dicky bird. A deafening silence in the nursing unions and the TUC. Maybe nurse Jennifer was as an open evangelical Christian rather than a trade unionist, the wrong kind of victim.

But recently we had that another nurse, sadly Peggy, and RCN members of 30 years has been forced to sue the Royal College of Nursing, her union for their failure to support and provide legal assistance when she was suspended by NHS Fife. And her crime is that she challenged the presence of Doctor Beth Upton, a biological man in the women only changing rooms at the Victoria Hospital. That nurse Peggy, her legal action is necessary should shame the trade union movement.

As Mrs Peggy solicitor Margaret explained, her client expected the union to, " Exercise its industrial muscle to challenge the trust discriminatory decision, which was adversely impacting on her and other female union members, and alleged, she alleged that she spoke to the union about the issue of single sex In relation to this amendment how can we mandate employers to buy generous facilities time to trade unions equality work with some charitable attitude as real-life attacks on equality at work is evidenced? When he is forced to take legal action to get justice from her own union I'm not trying want any more union equalities offices.

Susan Smith the four winners spot Scotland organisation who brought successful Supreme Court action knows quote, we imagine this is likely to be the first of many such cases was not sadly it seems that only financial penalties will persuade the unions to step up, do their job, and represent women in the workplace. Now there has been a lot of fine words in this chamber related to this bill about fighting for women's this bill about fighting for women's Yet in a profession which is 90% female, nursing, basic rights have been thrown under the bus, often with the acquiescence, even the support of workplace trade union reps.

To notes, nurses of all people need to get changed into work into uniforms when they arrive at the There close become soiled or contaminated as part of the job minimising risk of infection. In a stressful frontline job the last thing that is needed to be self- conscious or anxious when getting ready to work long hours on the wards, that's why single sex changing rooms are important and indeed mandated by health and safety regulations are Mr Foord for by earlier generations of trade unionists.

But no longer. Yes, the trade unions should be highlighting these recent attacks on hard-won women's rights at work, but they aren't. Instead they often stand with employers to betray their own members. The site has been left to a groundwater by courageous female workers and it's so bad officially that a group of nurses from County Durham have had to set up their own Darlington nurses union and I am glad to see the Secretary of State for Wes Streeting supporting them. Clause 62 mandates that two-way requires time off to be given for the purpose of promoting the value of equality in the workplace, and to see says providing information, advice or support qualifying members of the trade union in relation to equality in the workplace.

I have to ask exactly which ideas of equality will be promoted? What information or advice would be given, what aspects of equality will be ascribed value? After all, all the evidence shows that on key contemporary fight for women's equality there has been a one-sided ideological conformity in national unions policies, certainly at a leadership level. It is shocking that so many unions have declared that they will defy the Supreme Court's clarification of equality law, which rather begs the question, which version of equality well equality reps be promoting in the workplace? Well such legal misinformation be part of learning and training working hours that clause 62 requires? Because more broadly at should concern us as equality training is now routinely dominated by a particular EDI worldview.

Indeed equality diversity enormous have corrupted any traditional understanding of equality bites insistence on presenting social, economic and employment issues through the prism of identity politics and critical social theory. Often trade union bureaucrats work hand in glove with To To embed To embed EDI To embed EDI in To embed EDI in workplaces To embed EDI in workplaces such To embed EDI in workplaces such as the union's collaboration with ACAS on developing EDI policy templates. What does such EDI inspired trade union equality training look like? Some examples.

Racial literacy modules including inclusive language codes with charts listing problematic words. Or another that promises training to help spot the correct unconscious bias, micro- aggressions, Islamophobia. This feels like treating value because of problems you need to. Educated full stop or to quote another course that offers quotes, resources to help reps recognise how white workers make unknowingly benefit from inequitable biases. So less the positive trade union aspiration of White unite and fight, and more the student union campaigns against white privilege. Surely that is regressive and divisive and quotes the former chair of the EHRC Trevor Phillips in a comment piece in the Times recently, he wrote, EI programs increasingly appear not to be aimed at making the workplace a better more productive environment, but a modern day inquisition dedicated to damning white men male workers for a simply existing in such a politically toxic atmosphere where trade union seem as much of a hindrance as a help in relation to equality work I am simply probing why the government would use this legislation to put facilities time and a lot of details on facilities time, specifically for equalities reps.

I would say that would be a reps. I would say that would be a lead to disastrous outcomes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment put forward by Lord Jackson which have been raised in good faith and good intent came to
21:21
21:22
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
I would like to thank my noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to thank my noble friend Lord Jackson and the noble Baroness Baroness Fox of Buckley for their amendments. And contributions their amendments. And contributions to today's debate. I rise though to speak to the amendment standing in speak to the amendment standing in my name and the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. Where friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. Where we seek to make the provision of facility time for equality facility time for equality representatives conditional on public sector employers meeting the public sector employers meeting the statutory performance standards, I believe that such amendments are not believe that such amendments are not merely sensible, they are essential if we are to ensure that public if we are to ensure that public resources are allocated responsibly and with accountability.

It is no secret that we are constantly hearing from politicians and civil servants routinely claiming to want to protect taxpayers money, yet too often the rhetoric is hollow and budgets expand unchecked. One glaring example is the unchecked proliferation of equality, diversity and inclusion, or EDI, those roles in the public sector. For those unfamiliar, EDI is a branch of human resources, and there are now some 10,000 EDI officers employed across public sector organisations, so there has been a veritable explosion of spending that has occurred and I have to say, with minimal scrutiny or measurable outcomes.

So against this backdrop, it is right and proper to demand that facility time significant use of public resources, should be granted only to employers who are delivering on their statutory performance targets. So our amendments introduce a performance condition that requires the Secretary of State to be satisfied that a public sector organisation is meeting relevant standards before facility time can be allocated. I believe this to be of vital safeguard that I have to say clause 62 as currently drafted just fails to provide.

Clause 62 in its current form risks allowing facility time to be given indiscriminately without regard for whether the employers fulfilling its primary obligations to service users and taxpayers. I think that's a pretty laissez-faire approach. Which I believe is unacceptable in an era of tightening budgets, growing demand for public services and no doubt we will hear much more of this from the Chancellor of the Exchequer tomorrow morning. Without this condition, facility time risks becoming just yet another unchecked entitlement, further diverting scarce resources away from frontline delivery.

We must be clear however that supporting and moving these amendments does not mean opposing equality representatives themselves or the very important functions they perform. Rather, it just means insisting that public funds should be spent prudently and that facility time should be tied to organisational performance. If a public sector body is failing to meet statutory targets, I believe it is irresponsible to allow additional resource commitments without first addressing those failures. Moreover, our proposed new clause requires a sector by sector cost assessment of facility time.

That introduces a much needed transparency and evidence-based policy-making, so before expanding facility time or making it more widely available, Parliament must understand its real financial impact and weight carefully against the public benefits. So we would urge all noble Lords to refuse to accept clause 62 in its current form, but to embrace these amendments and then we will have a crucial formance condition. So in that way we would ensure that facility time is provided responsibly, with accountability, and only when public sector employers are meeting their statutory obligations.

I would however just like to commend my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough in moving what I thought were very reasonable amendments, and of course he is drawing on extensive experience, serving on council business and also the London fire and civil defence authority in which he served with such distinction. So I do hope the noble Lord the Minister will accept those amendments. And I have to say to the noble Baroness Fox of Buckley, I was appalled by the stories she gave.

Showing the experience of nurse Jennifer and nurse Peggy. It is a shocking shocking story, and how right she was to bring it to the attention of the House. There is a great worry that somewhere deeply embedded in the system is systemic sexism. I suppose I am looking back over its far too long ago. I was actually, I think I probably still am the only man to have been appointed Minister for Women in the Cabinet. I have to say the experience I had in that position warned me of the impending problems about which Baroness Fox spoke so passionately and so clearly.

We really have to get something right, and in many ways I know that this bill has been put together with great haste, but I think this particular clause, clause 62 in its current form, does at least require amendment, or perhaps another clause more carefully thought through should be presented to the House at the report stage, and that is why we look forward to hearing from the Minister. We are talking about not just -- good governance but a necessary step to protect both taxpayers and frontline protect both taxpayers and frontline

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Noble Lord for their amendments relating to the provision of facilities provided a trade union officials and representatives and indeed for speaking to them. And
21:31
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
indeed for speaking to them. And also thank the no Baroness Fox of Buckley for initiating the debate on clause 62, which I will also speak about. Turning first to amendments 224 to 223, the Noble Lord seeks to amend clause 61 to maintain as the Noble Lord argues a reasonable balance of obligations and responsibilities between employers and employees, and like the Noble Lord Lord Goddard, take them on face value, they are probing and aren't wrecking and the Noble Lord is trying to understand the appropriate balance.

And I would say to the Noble Lord Lord Jackson of Peterborough that the clause already seeks a reasonable balance of obligations and responsibilities between employers and employee representatives. The pay timer trade union representatives receive is often insufficient to fulfil all the trade union duties. Many union reps and tips you significant amounts of their own time to support workplace relations. And indeed in some sectors and some companies in some firms trade union activity is carried out on very much a voluntary basis rather than it being about people having full-time release and simply do nothing towards the organisation apart from being conducting trade union duties.

The government wants to rebalance obligations and responsibilities by ensuring that union workplace ribs and tips are able to take sufficient paid facility time and have sufficient access to facilities to enable them to fulfil union representative duties. The clause grants trade union representative is the right facility time and accommodation and other facilities from their employers, and does so by having regard to relevant code of practice issued by ACAS. The guidance will help employers to amend these measures that will be updated in partnership and through consultation with both employers and trade unions and will therefore help ensure a balance of obligations and responsibilities and ACAS is a very important and appropriate worthy organisation to undertake the role.

Great facility time will lead to better industrial relations giving trade unions and workplace representatives the freedom to organise represent and negotiate on behalf of their workers. This will result in a more mature industrial relations and increase cooperation between employers and unionised workers leading to beneficial outcomes for businesses and the economy. This is a framework to promote more cooperation and understanding of work, not more scope for conflict. Amendments to 34, 235 23 six concerning clause 62 tabled by the Noble Lord Lord Sharpe of Epsom required the performance condition must be met before facility time for a quality representative is provided by public sector employees.

This would make the provision of facility time condition on the employer already meeting certain performance standards, though the amendment is not specific about what they standards are. We fully recognise the importance of strong public sector performance unaccountably sector performance unaccountably however linking facility time is both disproportionate and counter- productive as it creates a barrier to improvement and creating strong industrial relations. These amendments would require the secretary of state to certify that a public sector employer is meeting relevant statutory performance standards before facility time can be granted.

Together they impose heavy administrative burdens both on employers who need to lie and provide evidence and central government which would have to assess compliance of every employer, and I hesitate to suggest this but speaking to other amendments on the bill during the committee stage, the benches opposite have been very quick to point out the administrative burdens that they assume are being placed on employers across all sectors by various measures in this bill. I would say the kind of burdens this amendment would place on the public sector would not be tolerated by them on the private sector.

More fundamentally they risk delaying facility time precisely from those organisations and most in need of support and undermines the very purpose of equality of representatives. Furthermore, a Secretary of State led certification process would create legal uncertainty and potential disputes. Could also harm industrial relations in the public sector. Finally attend to speak to the noble Baroness Baroness Fox of Buckley's opposition to clause 62. Clause 62 in sets new sections 168B into the trade union labourer relations and consolidation act and requires that an employee was a member of the independent trade union must be recognised by an equality % of the trade union, must be allowed to take paid time off during the employees working time.

However this only applies if they are given notice in writing that the employee is an equality representative or undergoing training to become a representative or that the employer has completed so training. Sufficient training is that which is sufficient for the purposes of an equality % of role having regard to relevant code of practice issued by ACAS or the Secretary of State. Clause 62 also requires that the employer must permit the employee to take paid time off during working hours to undergo training relevant to their role as an equality representative and where requested, provide the employer of accommodation and other facilities to enable them to fulfil their role and with regard to the code of practice.

Should an employer code of practice. Should an employer failed to give him time off, they can go to employment tribunal where it should be proven that this was not reasonable. So far on those grounds may Noble Lords it is as for any other recognised wrapper status. Trade unions have long fought for equality from Randwick to the Crystal Bar boy, and more recent study of retail workers, mostly female retail workers who have to cope with violence in the workplace.

Particularly from customers. So it's important to recognise as I think it's fair to say the noble Baroness Lady Fox of Buckley did you in her remarks. Equality reps have a key role to play in raising awareness and promoting equal rights from members as well as developing collective policies and practices that will enable a organisations to realise all the benefits of being an equal opportunities employer. Now noble Lady Baroness Fox of Buckley raised some specific examples that I join indeed with Lord Hunt of Wirral insane the case she set out of nurses Jennifer and Peggy were as she recounted them were horrific experiences that you wouldn't want to see anyone encounter.

But I'm equally unsure that using that single brush to tar the feathers of the whole proposal of having equality reps as -- is necessarily proportional. There is maybe some correlation but not necessarily causation. Clause 62 therefore recognises the role of representatives as a person elected or appointed with trade union rules and defined by reference to the equality act 2010. I contended that equality reps have a key role to play in raising awareness and promoting the rights of all members as well as developing collecting hot -- collective policies and practices that will enable organisations to realise all the benefits of being an equal opportunities employer.

Purely speculation but perhaps had equality reps in place in earlier years in the decades and local authorities, those same local authorities facing significant equal pay claims may not be facing those equal pay claims if there is more awareness of equality in terms of women's pay. In those days. Pure speculation, but who can say? To answer Baroness Fox's question what sort of equality, I want to... I'm not sure how rhetorical those questions were. To be clear for the purposes of the clause is defined in the equality act 2010.

Turning to amendment 2 37...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I might as well do it now. As you just asked a direct question, I gave one example. I'm sorry if the personalised examples make it sound as though they are one-off cases. I was trying to bring the live trends, not say there's Peggy... There are not say there's Peggy... There are loads of them but I only had 10 minutes. So they are trends, but minutes. So they are trends, but I've brought the life I hope. But I wanted to ask the Minister to wanted to ask the Minister to reflect two things.

As the equalities act of 2010 defines equality, I did use the example that equality, I did use the example that many trade unions at the moment saying that they are going to refuse saying that they are going to refuse to acknowledge the Supreme Court clarification of what equality means clarification of what equality means and that very act that they are going to defy it. And the name of equality. Trans inclusion and so on. That's one thing. So how do you square that circle? And the second question is...

You sorry, The Noble Lord the Minister read out the points about training, and part of my query was to challenge whether the government cared for the content of the training is. The argument is of the training is. The argument is putting forward is that the training being used under the name of equality at the moment is divisive and not maybe helpful in the back base that it was in fact likely to turn worker against worker, not the other way round, does the government consider any of that or just hand it over to the reps?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will try and address those points now. In terms of... I think fundamentally... Well of course we care the reps if they are undertaking any role around health undertaking any role around health and safety, learning or around and safety, learning or around workplace negotiation, will comply workplace negotiation, will comply with the law, and are trained in a with the law, and are trained in a suitable manner and doesn't mean we should be necessarily scrutinising every single thing they do because you would not expect that to be the case in the normal way of things.

And I suppose what I would say is that I was non-certainly meaning to little the examples the personalisation... She personally raised and the Baroness, she raised. And it's the case that I'm sure they are not the only ones, but at the same time one cannot make the generalisation that this is an endemic across all workplaces where their union representations. And I might also speculate as we are speculating here that actually perhaps the engagement and involvement of equality reps might actually prevent the kind of activity that you outlined in the case of nurses Jennifer and Peggy in the first place.

It's a counter factor, a speculation. One cannot say either way, but it's worth positing face it and if we are serious about discussing this. I think I should add, without want to stray too far from my brief, and let myself in legal hot water. The expectation of the government will be that all organisations will comply with equalities law, and in every manner of carrying out whatever duties. So it is clear that whatever it is clear, equality law specifies we would expect all organisations in employers and trade

**** Possible New Speaker ****

unions to follow... A very small question. In business we already comply with the business we already comply with the equalities act. Most businesses do it. Because it's mandated. But we it. Because it's mandated. But we would do it anyway because it's a good thing to do. My only concern good thing to do. My only concern is, and I think I reflected back to Baroness Fox's comment about cultural sensitivities. That may cultural sensitivities. That may arise from the equality reps, taking into account or not taking into account some communities own internal machinations of how they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

internal machinations of how they see certain roles of equality. Well for what it's worth my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well for what it's worth my experience of working in businesses is that most employers largest mall understand it's important and in terms of the nuts and bolts of economic growth, having a productive workforce is that they have harmonious workforces and that they are respectful and listen to the needs of their workforces however they manifest themselves. Again, hypothesis, and I think I understand what the noble Lady is getting out. But a workforce that is largely coming from a particular BME community, but however that has a management that is not of that particular community, the presence of an equality rep that comes from the majority workforce majority community if you get my drift, being able to make representations on behalf of that sensitivities around observing religious...

Religious observance or indeed modes of dress, modes of communication, that could actually be the good of their workplace and creating a greater understanding between the management and the workforce. One is only speculative here. And I think what it is fair if I may before she stands up again, the noble Lady stanza began, I said I would say that equality reps are yes a new idea, and so they are something that do exist already in voluntary organisations. The government think that having more of them in place would be a good thing for workplaces.

And it would promote more harmonious and productive workforces. This is something that is absolutely... It certainly increased I would observe having health and safety reps increased better adherence to health and safety laws and regulations and fewer issues of health and safety misdemeanours and accidents and the like in workplaces. Similarly union only reps have been a fantastic innovation in terms of promoting learning and skills in different learning and skills in different The notion of wanting to improve my promote equality and cultural sensitivity as the noble Lady put it in different workplaces would be I think the noble aim.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the Minister is going to twist himself into knots on this twist himself into knots on this one, simply because I think there are going to be challenges that are not going to be rightly represented, but maybe if I could indulge the but maybe if I could indulge the Minister have an off-line conversation with him just to explain the direction of travel I am coming from.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

coming from. I'm very happy for that and apologies if I have misunderstood the point she was trying to make, in terms of time this has been a fascinating debate but I want to make progress and finish off. make progress and finish off. Turning to amendment 237 tabled by Lord Sharpe of Epsom, the government resists this amendment which unnecessarily asked the government unnecessarily asked the government to conduct a cost assessment of trade union facility time to stop I strongly dispute the proposal that it, we currently don an impact assessment, this looks a cost of facility design is not likely to be sniffing for a particular employers.

Instead it could benefit business performance in the form of increased worker training and support greater worker attention through reduction in dismissals and voluntary exits. It's worth noting that the estimated Pay spent on facility time in the first year of reporting regulations enforced 2017 slashed 18 was not .07% and 423/24 reporting year the figure was not .06%. Which suggests a minimum impact of facility time in the public sector. Turning, I think it's also worth turning to amendment 333 saying that we expect further savings from the Exchequer resulting in more positive industrial relations which come about through greater facility time.

For instance we expect enhanced facility time to result in a reduction of the number of disputes going to the employment tribunal again, more harmonious and tribunal again, more harmonious and Turning to amendment 333 also tabled by Lord Sharpe, again the government strongly disputes the notion that facility time represents a significant cost to employers the top we already have conducted an impact assessment covering measures in the bill. The amendment is therefore not necessary and and simply delays the implementation of this clause and the benefits it would bring.

I therefore ask Lord Sharpe to withdraw his amendment and hope I noble Lords agree that clause 62 has a rightful place in the bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg your pardon. I sincerely apologise. On my amendment. Yes, apologise. On my amendment. Yes, I'm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

happy to move my amendment. Do I take it that the noble Lord is withdrawing his amendment?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes indeed. Amendment is by leave withdrawn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 225 already debated not moved. Can we take for the convenience of the committee amendments two to six through 233 amendments two to six through 233 not moved. The question is that clause 61 stand part of that bill. As many are of that opinion say, As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The "Contents" have it. Amendment 234 not moved. Amendment 235, 236 and 237 not moved.

Amendment... I beg your pardon. Clause 62 stand part of the bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The "Contents" have it. Amendment 237 withdrawn... Amendment 238 Lord Hendy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bit daunting to move a series of
21:50
Lord Hendy Portrait Lord Hendy (Labour)
-
-
amendments relating to the right to strike at 10 to 10. I want to begin just by thanking the Minister for spending time out of a very busy schedule to discuss these amendments on collective bargaining with me last week, the meeting was very amicable and very constructive but members opposite will be pleased no doubt to learn that she yielded not an inch on these amendments. Nonetheless I think it worthwhile to advance them. Amendment 238 is intended to confer a positive right to strike.

Striking and other forms of industrial action constitute a criminal offence until 1875 and was subject to civil liability until the The law has undergone various evolutions until the Conservative government passed a series of acts in the 1980s consolidated in the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act Consolidation act 1992, which severely restricted industrial action subject to those restrictions the Court of Appeal in Metrobus and Unite in 2010 held that quote, in this country the right to strike has never been much more than a slogan or a legal metaphor.

Such a right has not been bestowed by statute, what has happened is that since the trade disputes act 1906 legislation has provided limited immunities from liability and taught, at the time the immunities have been widened at other times they have been narrowed. Outside the scope of the immunities rigour of the common-law applies in the form of breach of contract on the part of the strikers and the economic torts as result the organisation, organisers and the union will stop as the Court of Appeal put it in Psycho and RMT in 2011, the legislation therefore quote, the legislative -- legislation therefore secures a freedom rather than conferring a right as shot.

Both judgements noted that the European can and other international laws ratified by the UK protected the right to strike, but that was held insufficient to establish such a right in UK law. So in the UK there is no positive right to strike, merely a freedom to take industrial action, protection from what other word -- would otherwise be unlawful. My amendment proposes that we should have such a right. In making that case I don't suggest that such a right should be free of limitations, if this amendment were adopted the current statutory restrictions on its exercise would remain.

The international treaty obligations by which the UK is elected to be bound support the case for my amendment. UK ratified ILO Convention 87 on freedom of association and protection of the right to organise on 27 June on 27 June, 1949. The ILO of course is a tripartite body representing governments, employers and workers of virtually every country in the world. The Convention 87 doesn't expressly mention the right to strike, since the 1950s the relevant supervisory committees of the ILO held repeatedly that it does so implicitly.

For decades member states have acknowledged that jurisprudence, so for example UK government has argued in the ILO that quote, the right to strike which although not expressly lay down in Convention 87 was implied by the provision there for the right freely to organise activities. Independent of Convention 87 the ILO recognises the right to strike. A joint statement issued by the employers group, workers group and governmental groups in 2015 affirmed that, the right to take industrial action by workers and employers is -- in support of their legitimate industrial interests is recognised by the constituents of the International Labour organisation.

Turning to other international treaties ratified by the United Kingdom, the UN declaration on human rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights protect Freeman -- freedom of association and the right to be a union member. In 2017 UN special rapporteur on freedom of association stated, the right to strike is also an intrinsic corollary of the fundamental right of freedom of association. It is crucial for millions of men, women and men around the world to assert collectively their rights in the workplace including the right to just and favourable conditions of work and to work in dignity and without fear of intimidation and persecution.

The international covenant on economic social and cultural rights in article 81D explicitly requires states parties to quote, ensure, the right to strike. In 2019 the supervisory bodies responsible for the two covenants I have just mentioned that respectively the committee on economic social and cultural rights and the Human Rights Committee issued a joint statement on the basic principles of freedom of association common to both government -- covenants. Stating, that the right to strike is a corollary to the effective exercise of the freedom to form and join trade unions.

In 1997 the committee on economic social and cultural rights addressed in relation to the United Kingdom the very issue raised by this amendment holding that, the committee considers that failure to incorporate the right to strike into domestic law constitutes a breach of article 8 of the covenant. The committee considers that the common law approach recognising only the freedom to strike and the concept that strike action constitutes a fundamental breach of contract justifies dismissal is not consistent with protection of the right to strike.

This led the committee to recommend that the right to strike established in UK legislation because, the current notion of freedom to strike which simply recognises the illegality of being submitted to an involuntary servitude is insufficient to satisfy the requirements of article 8 of the covenant. In 2002 the committee reiterated, its concern at the failure to incorporate the right to strike in domestic law constitutes a breach of article 8 of the covenant. And repeated its recommendation that the right to strike be incorporated in UK legislation.

It cannot be acceptable that the UK will not comply with these obligations. At European level European Court of Human Rights is recognised in a succession of cases that the right to strike is implicit in the right to form and join trade unions protected by Article 11 one of the convention. That other instrument of the Council of Europe, the European social Charter 1961 is more specific and provides in article 6 four that quote, the contracting parties recognise the right of workers and employers, in the event of a conflict-of-interest, to take collective action including the right to strike.

Not only is the right to strike incidental to freedom of association, it is also a necessary corollary of the right to bargain collectively. Without power to withdraw their labour collectively, workers have no leveraged against much greater power of employers to set wages, hours, terms and conditions under which they Labour. The point was elegantly stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Saskatchewan Federation of Canada in Saskatchewan Federation of labour in 2015. Quote, the conclusion that the right to strike is an essential part of a meaningful collective bargaining process in our system of labour relations is supported by history, by jurisprudence and by Canada's international obligations.

The right to strike is not merely derivative of collective bargaining, it is an indispensable component of that right. It seems to me the time to give this conclusion constitutional benediction. Finally in the survey it is to be noted that the EU, UK Trade and Co-operation Agreement of 399 that quote, each party commits to incrementing all the ILO conventions that UK and member states have respectively ratified, and the different provisions of the European social Charter that has members of the Council of Europe the member states and the UK have respectively accepted.

Unsurprisingly, it is widely accepted that the right to strike has achieved the status of customary international law. Supported by widespread state practice, with more than 90 countries recognising the right to strike in their No doubt the government was a positive right to strike is unnecessary, a matter of legal form over substance since it will not of itself alter the statutory restrictions and conditions for strike action, whatever they may be after the bill becomes law. I respectfully disagree. In the first place, form is important.

British workers should have at least the same nominal rights as workers all over Europe. But if a positive right makes no difference, then there is no reason not to grant it. In fact, a positive right to strike in the UK would be highly relevant to the continuing evolution of the carnal torts from which the legislation starting in 1906 confers protection. The Supreme Court of Ireland last year expressed, which has a similar history of legislation expressed the view that, " It is quite wrong to approach the entire question of the lawfulness or otherwise of industrial action principally through the prism of the common law economic torts which were deployed by Victorian judges in response to the emergence of the trade union movements in the second half of the 19th century." A positive right to strike might also be relevant to the effect 's questions of dismissal or detriment imposed for taking industrial action currently founded on the underlying assumption that industrial action involves repudiating re- breach of contract on the workers part justified termination of the contract, a positive right to strike would surely be relevant in reassessing that equation in the future.

Without

**** Possible New Speaker ****

much hope, I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

64 insert the following new clause is printed on the marshalled list. I'm going to speak on this even though it's complete pointless. Because I do feel quite strongly
22:03
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
Because I do feel quite strongly about it. I'm getting snarky comments from the Tory frontbench. I object very strongly to that. So I speak in support of Amendment 238, even though the noble Lord Hendy needs no support at all because this does establish clear positive right to strike or take action short of a strike. And as the Noble Lord pointed out at the start of his introduction, from the early 1980s onwards, had one set of antiunion laws after another.

And there are now decades of them. Conservative governments have introduced antiunion laws and Labour governments have mostly kept them. The result has been declining union membership and the power of working people has been taken away. The UK has gone from a country where income equality wasn't really that bad and is even falling in the 1970s to an equality rising sharply ever since. That means more billionaires, more money for the top 1% of earners whilst more people exist on low incomes and live their entire lives owning nothing but debt.

So our economy has actually stopped working in the interest of the majority of people. Working people have less power, but businesses and capital have more. It's one reason why this country millions of pounds now disappear to offshore tax havens. The right of working people to withdraw their labour as a fundamental right, but it has been eroded. This amendment on the right to strike is another little step towards restoring the balance of power in the workplace. And without these little steps, that enable working people to stand up for themselves, then this country will actually continue to get worse for the majority of people who do the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

real work. I just wanted to very briefly commend the Noble Lord Lord Hendy commend the Noble Lord Lord Hendy for putting this motion forward I've got a lot of sympathy with it and I got a lot of sympathy with it and I think that the noble Baroness Jones
22:05
22:07
Lord Goddard of Stockport Portrait Lord Goddard of Stockport (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

These amendments proposed by Lord Hendy and Lord Woodley I think as Hendy and Lord Woodley I think as people have outlined, and I've been on the wrong end of the legislation on a number of these events, official strikes, unofficial strikes and secondary ticketing, and it's not as a shop steward, you are responsible for taking those actions for a company, and there are consequences and I have suffered consequences from that, and that isn't that I agree with the rights being taken away, but there is a think I think times of change now.

I think unions have moved on now, but think you are right to maintain the right that anyone has the right to remove his labour if he is pushed away. That should be a universal right, but it should be used very sparingly and in very very special circumstances. And I think rushing to legislation and European court we live in the real world, and when things happen to people at work, people are treated badly at work, sometimes we haven't got time to go and contact the KC and get case law.

We just do the things we used to do and take that action straight away. Sometimes that resolves the matter fairly quickly because a reasonable employer will see the action you have taken as a direct result of another manager doing something that was not in agreement. So I get the thrust of this and I've had notes typed and have been writing my own notes, but I think the top and bottom for me is that the amendment seeking to be sought union flexibly in choosing which members to ban and remove some strategic requirements from notification in advance, I think that time has gone as well.

By notably the focus on restating rights for prison of, the group currently subject to significant legal limitations is one I would like to start to explore the because the intent behind this is trade union rights to protect collective bargaining. The industrial relations particularly with the actions of prison officers, and I would say to Lord Hendy and to the government that the way to protect prison officers is not to enshrine the right to strike but to remove the reasons why they would want to strike.

And that really is about improving the Victorian conditions we have in 2025 business systems where people go into prison and come out worst criminals or 9/10 drug addicts or whatever command think where governments instead of trying to give extra life of prison officer should be looking at the root cause of it. I know there is a prison plan be there and we are trying to get rights for prisoners, if you want to speak to Lord Timpson he can give you chapter and verse on that as I've been listening to him to do.

So really hear what you were doing it, I understand why you are doing it, I do know it's not got a hope to get through, and I do thank you for bringing it forward because sometimes it is good to realise that things we used to do perhaps today again even politically correct to do, but human rights and the rights of people who go every day to work to and living to support a family, they need airing and protecting.

And I note this is a probing amendment, but I do thank you for bringing it because it is interesting and now and again it's good to be reminded of what, how it used to be and how it can be now. Thank you.
22:10
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
Can join the general thanks to the Noble Lord Lord Hendy? I thought it was most interesting introduction and lend a great deal. And I particularly like the phrase constitutional benediction, which I'm planning to neck, although not in this context I'm afraid. Because I write to express my clear and firm opposition joining the nobility the Minister to the proposed clause after 64 which seeks to enshrine Institute is a good positive right strike even in breach of context -- contract.

As opposed following the Noble Lord's arguments correctly to the freedom to strike, which strikes me as somewhat semantic in terms of the actual particle outcome which I suspect is an argument we will hear again. But let's be absently frank about what the amendment would entail. Exhibit insight into the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act Sunday act of 1992 a wholly unprecedented and therefore dangerously broad provision which is that every worker shall have the right to take industrial action whether or not in breach of any contract.

So not subject to employ agreement, not tethered to lawful procedures but an absolute statutory right to break contract terms and withdraw labour. Industrial action and particular strike action is honestly a serious matter and I think everybody agree on that. It affects not only the employer but also the public, the economy and critically the most vulnerable in society who rely on public services. So that's why we believe our existing legal framework strikes a careful balance, protects it the right to strike but does so within clear procedures and obligations.

Balloting requirement notice periods against unlawful disruption. This amendment would write roughshod over all that. And what does it mean to have a right to breach of contract regardless of process or proportionality? Surely that is not right, that's just carte blanche. This provision would displace the carefully constructed framework that governs how industrial action can be taken lawfully and responsibly, to empower disruption without accountability. The purpose of employment law is not to tilt the playing field in one direction or another to ensure the fairness, order and mutual obligations between employers and workers are respected.

The right to withdraw labour must remain conditional upon lawful procedures and not granted in the abstract. Regardless of impact or legality. Moreover the proposed amendment would likely bring the UK into direct conflict with established contract law and create endless legal uncertainty. If workers are told they have a statutory right to strike even in breach of the contract, what does that mean for essential services for public safety, the ability of schools, hospitals and transport systems function with any consistency? I don't think we should be mistaken, this amendment is not some minor clarification for as a fundamental rewrite of the basis of workplace relations.

It would undermine the Prince but that contract entered into freely to carry obligations and would sweep away the balance between rights and responsibilities. I did have to ask as well, once a principle of contract breaking is established, how long before that is used as precedent in other contracts or disputes. Nobody denies that workers must be to organise, speak up, barking collectively and act were necessary, is orally protected in the legal framework this amendment would take a sledgehammer to the balance and replace legal clarity we believe with leap mean legal balance and I would urge the government to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reject this amendment. I thank my Noble Friend Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my Noble Friend Lord Hendy for tabling amendment to 38, which would establish broad statutory right to strike, and I statutory right to strike, and I thank him also for our constructive and amicable meeting, which we held a few days ago and also for his impressive tour of international conventions this evening, and I do conventions this evening, and I do have to say to him that anything I have to say to him that anything I subsequently say doesn't mean I don't take our international don't take our international purgation seriously, and I think in this increasingly uncertain world, we have more of an obligation if you we have more of an obligation if you like to work collaboratively across countries, and I think there is a lot to be gained from countries if lot to be gained from countries if we do that not only on these sort of issues but obviously other issues of social justice as well.

And I thank the noble Ladies Baroness Fox and Jones for adding to this short debate and for the noble Lord Goddard, and he raised some of the issues around prisons, and I will be addressing those in the next group of amendments, but the point is well made that we certainly have to look after and defend our prison officers and recognise the service that they do for us. Whilst the government recognises the intention to reinforce protections for industrial action, support and emphasise that the right to strike is already protected under UK law.

A set out in sections 219 and 244 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act consolidation act 1992. Providing clear conditions are met. Introducing a specific codified right to strike would cut across the codified nature of the UK constitution and lead to a far- reaching and undefined statutory right the risks legal uncertainty and conflict with long established frameworks that carefully balance the rights of unions and employers. Furthermore, international conventions including the ILO Convention 87 to which the Noble Lord referred, in article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights do not and have not yet ever required an absolute right to strike to be codified in domestic legislation.

We agree that multiple international conventions protect the right to strike but they also permit states to impose limitations on the right to strike and don't provide that this right is absolute and unqualified. So for the avoidance of doubt, the government is clear that the UK is in compliance with our international law obligations. Our legislation ensures a fair and proportionate approach to industrial action and a clear protected right to strike the UK workers within the context of a UK workers within the context of a Therefore see no need to change the law to provide an express right to strike.

I would also say to the noble Lord as I've said the government believes the UK is compliant with all its international obligations and we are very proud of the real difference this bill will make working people's lives and the vital role that trade unions will vital role that trade unions will play. I hope the noble Lord will make note of the very substantial progress being made in this bill, particularly when concerning some of the issues that have been raised by the ILO on a range of issues, for For industrial action, industrial action ballot threshold, the ballot mandate, the supervision of pickets, protection against detriment dismissal for taking industrial action, provision of information about industrial action to the certification officer, enforcement and levy powers of the certificate should officer, the repeal of minimal strike levels and rights of access to the workplace for unions.

I would say that we are making progress, we continue to take our obligations seriously, and I hope that I am now persuaded the noble Lord although I'm sure I haven't, that therefore we don't need to adopt this amendment because these issues are already covered in UK law. Nevertheless I thank him for the short debate.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am very grateful to Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb for her support Jones of Moulsecoomb for her support and her economic analysis of the consequences of the absence of the effective right to strike, I'm
22:18
22:19
Lord Hendy Portrait Lord Hendy (Labour)
-
-
we are arguing, but this right Mr Twigg to come about, would have Twigg to come about, would have practical real consequences -- were it to come about. The purpose of these international laws of course these international laws of course is to lay down international, to lay down minimum and fundamental down minimum and fundamental standards for the entire globe, and although some of them are quite ancient dating to just after the ancient dating to just after the Second World War, and whilst I Second World War, and whilst I accept that capitalism and the world of work has evolved, the fundamental nature of the entitlement to freedom nature of the entitlement to freedom of association, the right to bargain collectively and the right to strike remain.

And it's very important that we keep and I on these international standards and the modern interpretation of them by the bodies which are charged constitutionally to interpret them. I'm grateful to Lord Goddard for what I discerned was his support in a way at least for the principal. This is my fault entirely but I was only moving amendment to 38, I'm afraid he has got further real ordeal of listening to me again for the range of further right to strike amendment.

-- 238. Including in relation to prison officers. I'm grateful of course to Lord Sharpe for his thorough response to my arguments, you can use of course the phrase constitutional benediction but it comes better if you are Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. I won't take up time with dealing with all the arguments, the differences between us are self- evident. I would just point out this, a positive right to strike exists in virtually every country in Europe and they don't have a difficulty with issues of breach of contract.

Of course the restrictions on exercising the right to strike differ from one country to another but the positive right exists almost everywhere. Finally I thank of course Baroness Jones, the Minister for her very full response, just a couple of points if I may deal with, she says positive right to strike would cut across our constitutional arrangements and I would just remind her that in fact section 2 20 of the 1992 act provides a positive right to picket. So if we can have a positive right to visit -- picket I don't see why we can't have a positive right to strike.

For the avoidance of doubt I wasn't suggesting for a moment an absolute and unqualified right to strike, everywhere in the world that there is a right to strike it is always subject to limitations which differ from country to country. The question that these international bodies wrestle with day in day out is whether the particular limitation is in conformity or not with whatever the international treaty is. My noble friend asserts that we are in compliance with international law over this, we have to agree to disagree on that point, I do not believe that to be the case.

Of course I agree with the noble Lady that this bill is a great improvement on the law as it is at the moment, but she knows that my view is that it's not quite enough. With that I beg leave with the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

redraw the amendment. Cash withdrawal. Is at your Lordships pleasure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is at your Lordships pleasure that the amendment is by leave withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 239 Lord Hendy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdrawn. Amendment 239 Lord Hendy. It is now 10:22 so I apologise for assaulting your ears with a series of amendments which also deal with the right to strike. Since time with the right to strike. Since time is obviously precious I have decided to focus on one amendment in to focus on one amendment in particular and let the rest speak for themselves. I had hoped that for themselves. I had hoped that Lord Woodley would move his amendment in relation to prison officers but he is unavoidably not in his place and I understand that amendment is not to be moved.

I will have to deal with that when I get to it. The amendment I want to focus on is amendment 240 which introduces six specific men -- measures aimed at the restoration of statutory protection for secondary action. Again, I don't entertain a great deal of hope about this amendment, I am a realist, but I must express my gratitude for the support Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb who has added her name to this amendment, a briefing from the British Medical Association and the support of unions including Aslef, the BMA, the Bakers Food and Allied workers union, the Fire Brigades' Union, RMT and University College Union.

Solidarity action is an inherent aspect of freedom of association. The right of workers to act for and on behalf of fellow workers, particularly fellow trade unionists. From 1906 to 1982 there was no legal distinction between solidarity action and other industrial action. The Conservative government then introduced restrictions on certain kinds of secondary action, and in 1990 all statutory protection was withdrawn. The Labour Party strongly objected, in the parliamentary debates on the 1990 bill, Tony Blair then shadow employment minister said in the other place quote, the abolition of sympathy action is unreasonable, unjustified and way out of line with anything that out of line with anything that happens elsewhere.

In relation to the proposal that all forms of sympathy and secondary action were to be forbidden he said quote, that proposition is so manifestly unfair and unreasonable, that it is fatal to any pretence of evenhandedness in Compliance with international law is a duty incumbent on the state. Lord Bingham's eighth principle of the law or rule of law is the obligation of the state and ministers to comply with its international treaty obligations. In this House the Attorney-General said of compliance with international law that quote, we should all be immensely proud of it and this government will seek at every turn to comply with our obligations.

He developed the theme in a lecture to the United service Institute on 29 May this year in , amongst international obligations he continued quote, the argument that the UK can breaches international obligations when it is in the national interest to do so is a radical departure from the U.K.'s constitutional traditions, which have long been that ministers are under a duty to comply with international law. States can leave the treaties they have signed and agreed on, but the integrity and force of the system requires that once a party to an agreement they abide by its rules.

They don't pick and mix. It will be recalled that the Labour Party in 2021 adopted the Green Paper quote, a new deal for working people. It was integrated into Labour's Plan to Make Work Pay, delivering a new deal for working people. It was explicitly referred to in the election manifesto and in the Kings speech. This is what a new deal said. Quote, the laws regulating industrial action should ensure that UK law complies in every respect with the international obligations ratified by the UK including those of the International Labour Organization and the European social Charter, as reiterated in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement with the European Union.

The UK has ratified ILO Convention 87 which protects the right to strike. Since 1989 the ILO committee of expert jurists has reviewed the U.K.'s legislative restrictions on secondary action and help them in violation of ILO Convention 87, a committee held that secondary action should be permitted in three situations. A where it relates directly to the social and economic interests of the workers involved in either or both the original dispute and the secondary action and where the original dispute and secondary action are not unlawful in themselves.

The, in any event a general prohibition of sympathy strikes could lead to abuse and that workers should be able to take such action provided the initial strike they are supporting is itself lawful. And see, furthermore, the restriction to disputes only between workers in their own employer quote, could make it impossible for unions to take effective action in situations where the real employer with whom they were in dispute was able to take refuge behind one or more subsidiary companies who technically the employer of the workers concerned but who lacked the capacity to take decisions which are capable of satisfactory resolving capable of satisfactory resolving the dispute.

That condemnation in 1989 has been repeated many times in the committee of experts the committee of experts observations on the United Kingdom, including 1995, 1999, 2001, 2003, The other ILO committee, the tripartite committee on three freedom of association has also condemned the UK in this regard, holding that quote, a ban on strike action not linked to a collective dispute to which the employee union is party is contrary to the constables of freedom of association. The committee once again request the government to take the necessary measures to ensure that sympathy strikes as well as social and economic protest action are protected under the law.

In November 2023 that committee reviewed the P&O Ferries scandal reviewed the P&O Ferries scandal This, quote. At the outset the committee recalled that a general prohibition of sympathy strikes could lead to abuse and workers should be able to take such action provided the initial strike they are supporting is itself lawful. The committee recalls that it previously requested the UK government to take the necessary measures to ensure that sympathy strikes were protected under the law. Mitty requests the government to engage with the social partners to overcome challenges regarding the legislative prohibition on sympathy strikes in conformity with freedom of association.

The request was ignored. I need to interject that in 2014 I need to interject that in 2014 European Ct of human rights concluded in our MTV -- RMT and the UK that although the absence of protection of sympathy action was in breach of the right to strike under European can Article 11, one. It permissible EVEL within the U.K.'s margin of appreciation under article 11 two. However as Lord Hermer pointed out, states cannot cherry pick the treaty obligations with which they will conform from amongst those they have ratified.

Put another way, violation of ILO Convention 87 is not excused by non-violation of the European can. In 2024 -- Convention. The ILO Mitty of experts considered that judgement of the European Court holding that the ILO was not bound -- committee, by a committee made under a different label instrument accordingly it repeated the position on the UK taken 35 years adding quote, the committee therefore once again request the government to engage with the social partners to overcome challenges regarding the legislative prohibition on sympathy strikes in conformity with freedom And in February this year, the committee's observations yet again repeated that request.

Turning to the Council of Europe, Estates like the United Kingdom which have ratified article 6.4 of the European social Charter, must guarantee the right to strike, that involves the European committee on social rights have held that, " Lawful collective action and not be limited to disputes between workers and their employer. Thus preventing a union from taking action against a de facto employer, which is not the immediate employer. Article 6.4 also guarantees the right to participate in secondary action.

In 1991, European committee on social rights held that the ILO's findings of breaches of Convention 87 by the UK were also violations of article 6.4 of the charter. The negative conclusion was repeated in 1993 and resulted in a formal recommendation of the Committee of Ministers to the United Kingdom. The negative conclusions were repeated in 1998, conclusions were repeated in 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2010, 2014, 2019 and 2023. This bill is the opportunity to restore the United Kingdom to the nation states which abide by the treaty obligations by which they have agreed to be bound.

Either that or this Labour government will be forced to admit that it won't conform and will instead denounce ILO Convention 87 and the European social Charter article 6.4, an outcome which I believe to be inconceivable. I see the time, but I want surely to deal with the other amendments, and I will do it shortly. Amendment 239 would repeal section 223 of the 1992 act which prevents industrial action taken with a view to reinstating strikers dismissed when taking unofficial industrial action.

This is a matter of industrial justice of the TUC as pointed out, but it applies regardless of the cause of the unofficial action. It's also been the subject of criticism by the ILO committee of experts. Amendment 241 is intended to restore the right to take industrial action to gain recognition of a union by an employer for the purposes of collective bargaining. That should be an entirely legitimate object. Amendment 2 40 is to remove the requirement to give notice to the employer that the union intends to hold a ballot on industrial action.

Inevitably a union will publicise that, but the objection to it as it being a mandatory requirement and a condition to secure protection of the right subsequently to take industrial action. The ILO has condemned the requirement to give notice of industrial action. Amendment 2 three fee is to remove the hideous complexity of the distinction between separate and aggregated ballots, which is an extreme example of the complexity of the current legislation which has been condemned by the ILO since 1989.

Amendment 2 49 is intended to relieve the obligation on unions to give notice to the employer of the full results of the ballot instead a sensible arrangement is proposed suitable for the 21st century and requiring unions to put the full result in easily accessible place on their website. Amendment 2 53 has the same effect as Lord Woodley's amendment 261, which is to restore depressing offices the right to take industrial action, a right which was taken from them 50 years after their founding by the Criminal Justice Bill and public order act of 1994.

I won't say more about that than this, but the ILO permits restrictions on strikes in essential services, but requires one of several preconditions, and that is that the restriction must be accompanied by adequate impartial and speedy reconciliation and arbitration proceedings in which the parties concerned could take part at every stage and in which awards once made are fully and properly implemented. What happened was that the prison service pay review body was imposed on the prison service.

The government has not regarded itself as bound until the present government, which has promised that every penny, every last penny of the PSR BP... PS RPP recommendations will be fulfilled. The problem is that that doesn't resolve the issue if the right to strike. And my amendment seeks to relieve the ban, but if the government don't accept lifting the ban on prisoners taking industrial action, then they must in order to comply with the rule of law and the requirements of the ILO Institute and arbitral machinery in which the members of the arbitral body are appointed on the basis of specific guidance or criteria which has the confidence of all parties which provides adequate impartial and speedy conciliation and arbitration in which the parties concerned could take part at every stage and in which awards once made are fully and properly implemented.

It also means that if the PSP RB is to undertake that function, must be given a remit outside simply pay. And that body currently doesn't enjoy the confidence of the POA. I think I've said I beg to move

**** Possible New Speaker ****

already, perhaps I need to say it again. Amendment proposed after clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause 64, and said the new clause the words is printed on the marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

list. It is getting late, and it's more than an hour and 9:30 preferred bedtime, so I'm going to show
22:39
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
bedtime, so I'm going to show incredible restraint and although I've signed five amendments, I'm only going to speak to three, and to see the Chief Whip is scowling at me even before I start. So obviously I'm going to milk it for all it's worth. What I see as agreed is with every decade of globalisation, this country has had less industry and more of our public services sold off to foreign owners. I don't understand why this happened. It doesn't seem good business to me, and the next step of course is going to be free ports were basic rules and protections just disappear.

And that's where this country is heading, and I would say that we need the return of strong trade unions to help turn the tide, so each of these amendments aims to give back the power that organised labour once had. 239 would enable workers to act collectively if the employee has dismissed someone downing tools. Oversee that person might have refused to work for all sorts of reasons. The matter been asked to do some dangerous or asked in an abusive way, or it's beyond their job description.

The noble or the Chief Whip is making me laugh now. There are a lot of good reasons why someone might work out, and their colleagues can judge whether they are sensible. The noble Lord Lord Hendy said he only really wanted to talk about amendment 2 40. And I do agree that that's quite important because modern industry and services are broken up into small interconnected companies and subcontractors, and it's absolutely essential that workers are able to bring their grievances to the attention of other workers in closely related workplaces.

I know the employers don't like it because it's working people acting as solidarity with each other. It's one set of workers asking another set of employees to make their own decisions about which side they are on. But the idea of democracy doesn't stop at the ballot box. Not that we would know much about that probably. It should be in the workplace as well, and last week I met with trade unionist from Italy. He and his co-workers took over GKN factory in Florence, and they are moving, they are trying to move as a cooperative working force trying to move from making parts for very expensive cars to actually creating, to making eco-bikes and solar panels.

It's a fantastic opportunity. And I really hope they are successful. I would say the amendment 2 for one is the most crucial of these amendments as it restores the rights of workers to take industrial action in order to be recognised as trade unionists. To me this is the most basic of rights, and it's shameful that a Labour government hasn't put this into the bill for top what is labour for if not about working people? Will everything else apparently. The decline in trade unions has led to the growth of the good economy and spurious self-employment gig economy.

The age of secure, and regular hours has be come a fading dream for many and this amendment is another small step to empowering workplaces. Collective bargaining should be automatic in workplaces if a large enough group of employees wanted but with seven employers and willing to take that step, it's crucial that those employees have the right to strike and demand that recognition from an employer. Now for me, I want, I would like a just society, a fair society. And what we've seen in Britain now, what we are seeing is that the richest 50 families in the UK hold more wealth than the bottom 33.5 million people.

How is that OK? I would argue that it isn't. Nothing in this country works properly anymore because the gap between the richest and the forest is increasing every single day. Those on a low income are being left behind and those on middle incomes are being fleeced by privatised services. And I would argue that strong trade unions one way of helping people find a bit of power and controlling their lives. And these amendments enable that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do want to thank the actual

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do want to thank the actual noble and learned Lord for bringing this into our debate, but candidly, probably amendment 2 40 is just one that is truly extraordinary. The that is truly extraordinary. The
22:44
22:45
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
It would be a disaster for our country if we were to go back to the era of coke works, to groundwork, to the disaster that was inflicted on the automotive industry, and the era of flying pickets and their close shop. But that aside, what really got my goat so to speak is this cultural cringe, this genuflection to this concept of international law because we have to stay did it once more again there is no such thing in this country as international law.

We have a dualist regime where we decide which obligations we accept in this sovereign Parliament in our country. The idea that because a foreign legal entity has decided something which affects everyone in our citizens is nonsense. It is for this Parliament elected by the people at the other end of this building and us to make those He paraded international or throughout his very comprehensive and well argued remarks but I fundamentally disagree with them. The final point I want to say is there are pensive examples where we have cherry picked international obligations, the first number two case 2005, prisoner votes, the then Conservative government and I think probably agree with by the Labour opposition completely disregarded the idea of giving a full franchise to prisoners serving a custodial sentences my noble friend on the Frontbench is nodding her head as a very accomplished home Minister.

There are cases where we've disregarded our obligations for political reasons and we can do it again because the choice is bringing back secondary picketing and all that goes with it or disregarding some obligations that have been some obligations that have been established by a foreign legal advocacy I know which -- entity I know which decision I would make for the long-term future of employment and business and commerce in this country.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank Lord Hendy and Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank Lord Hendy and Baroness Jones, it seems to me that the key purpose behind this group of amendments is seeking to shift the amendments is seeking to shift the balance of power a little bit more balance of power a little bit more towards working people. I think you would find that many people in the country agree that that balance of country agree that that balance of power has swung too far against ordinary working people for too ordinary working people for too long.

I did want to very briefly say a word on amendment 253 and I wanted a word on amendment 253 and I wanted to underline this very grave sense to underline this very grave sense of injustice that prison officers of injustice that prison officers feel about the removal of what is a fundamental human right the right to withdraw your labour back in 1994. The sense that that did not in any way improve the prison service, I think many of us would agree that the prison service subsequently has faced huge challenges and as a workplace we know what prison officers face very often day-to-day in their work, violence, poor conditions, vermin, huge problems that they face.

I suppose I would like to stress the appeal made by Lord Hendy and that given the grave sense of injustice that is felt by people who not only stand up for fellow workers as members of the POA but also stand up for a service, that we could become proud of the country, the prison service that does the job hopefully of rehabilitating people, that in rehabilitating people, that in considering that we do look to considering that we do look to engage with the POA to find a remedy to that real sense of injustice that they feel.

they feel.
22:49
22:50
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
Peterborough. In their speaking against amendments in this group we against amendments in this group we collectively feel that these amendments collectively represent a dangerous and retrograde step that would just take us back to the would just take us back to the industrial chaos of the 1970s. Such amendments would fundamentally undermine the carefully balanced framework of industrial relations framework of industrial relations that has served this country well that has served this country well for now over 30 years.

But I suppose the conventions of the House require the conventions of the House require me to address each amendment in turn, starting with amendment 239. turn, starting with amendment 239. As Lord Hendy described this would remove section 223 of the 1992 act which currently renders unlawful any industrial action taken in response to dismissals for unofficial action. When workers engage in unofficial action, that is action not sanctioned by their trade union, and without proper balloting procedures they are essentially taking the law into their own hands.

So employers must retain the right to dismiss workers who breach their contract in this manner. To permit official industrial action in response to such lawful dismissals would create a vicious circle. Where lawlessness begets more lawlessness. It would effectively immunise unofficial action from any meaningful consequences and encourage workers to bypass the proper democratic procedures that surely unions themselves have fought hard to establish. Amendment 240 is perhaps the most pernicious of all these proposals.

It seeks to restore secondary action, the ability of workers to strike not just against their own employer over their own conditions, but to support disputes elsewhere. We banned secondary action for compelling reasons. It allows disputes to spread like wildfire across the economy, dragging innocent third parties into conflicts that had nothing to do with their own industrial relationships. The dispute between workers of one employer could paralyse entire supply chains, disrupting businesses that have committed no wrong and harming workers you have no stake in the original dispute.

The amendment would also remove the sensible restrictions on picketing, allowing pickets to target any workplace rather than their own. This opens the door to flying pickets, mass intimidation tactics that we witnessed in the darkest days of industrial conflict. When pickets can descend upon workplaces with which they have no employment relationship, the result is not legitimate industrial pressure, but mob rule. Furthermore by changing the definition of trade disputes from those I quote, wholly or mainly, relating to employment matters to those merely again I quote, collected with, such matters this amendment would politicise industrial action.

Strikes could be called on the flimsiest of pretexts with only the most tenuous connection to genuine workplace issues. This is a recipe for politically motivated disruption that serves no legitimate industrial relations purpose. Then amendment 241 seeks to restore the right to strike for union recognition. We have established statutory procedures for union recognition that are fair, democratic and effective. These procedures protect workers rights to choose whether they wish to be represented by a union without the coercion that inevitably accompanies strike action.

When recognition can be achieved through industrial action, the process becomes tainted by intimidation rather than informed by genuine work of preference. No worker should ever face the choice between supporting their family and supporting union recognition demands. Amendment 242 would remove the requirement for unions to provide employers with notice of strike ballots. This seemingly to call change would also have profound practical consequences. Employers need advanced notice to make contingency arrangements to protect vulnerable service users and to engage in meaningful dialogue that might resolve disputes before they escalate.

Essential services are hospitals schools and transport networks, such notice is crucial for public safety. To remove this requirement would be to abandon the vitally important principle that industrial action should and must be a last resort rather than a first response. Finally amendment 243 would eliminate the requirement for separate workplace ballots, allowing unions to aggregate concretely -- complete different workplaces and employment relationships into single ballots. I believe this strikes at the heart of democratic participation. Workers in one workplace may face entirely different conditions and concerns from those in another, they should not be banned -- bound by the votes of workers with whom they share nothing but a common union membership.

Workplace specific ballots ensure that industrial action has genuine support from those who will participate in it rather than being imposed by union hierarchy pursuing its own agenda. Taken together all these amendments would create a perfect storm of industrial instability. They would restore the legal framework that gave us the winter of discontent when rubbish piled up in our streets, bodies went unburied and hospital patients were turned away by striking workers. They would empower union leaders to spread disputes across entire industries, to bypass democratic procedures and to hold essential services hostage to political demands.

We really mustn't forget the lessons of history. The industrial relations reforms of the 80s and 90s did not destroy trade unionism they civilised it. They required unions to be accountable to their members and responsive to legitimate concerns while preventing the abuse of industrial power. The noble Lords Lord Hendy, noble Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway would have us believe that they simply want to restore workers rights. Rights without responsibilities are merely privileges, and privileges exercise without regard for their impact on others quickly becomes tyranny.

The right to strike is not an absolute rights, it is a powerful tool that must be used judiciously and with proper safeguards. Moreover these amendments would do nothing to address the real challenges facing working people today, they would not raise a single wage, improve a single workplace or create a single job. Instead as my noble friends has pointed out they would create uncertainty, discourage investment and ultimately harm the very workers they purport to help. Businesses need stability and predictability to grow and prosper.

Industrial relations law that encourages conflict and chaos would drive investment elsewhere taking jobs and opportunities with it. So I urge this House to reject these amendments. They represent not progress but regression. Not liberation but licence, not workers rights but workers wrongs. We must maintain a balanced approach that has served our economy and our society so well so let us resist the siren call of those who would drag us back to an era of industrial warfare that all of us, all of us hope that we would never see again.

The choice before us is clear, we can preserve a system that protects workers legitimate rights while maintaining economic stability and social peace, or we can return to those bad old days of secondary picketing, political strikes and industrial anarchy. I think and I hope I know which path this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

would choose. I thank my noble friend Lord
23:00
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
Hendy for his amendments on the right to strike and for raising the issue of prison officers rights to strike which was also strongly debated in the other place. I'm sorry that the noble Lord Lord Hunt has taken such a strident approach to the issues which my noble friends have raised and although we don't necessarily agree with everything that my noble friend has put forward I would equally say that we distance ourselves from the tone and attitude that has been presented by the other If I turn to amendment 239 tabled by my Noble Friend Lord Hendy, section 223 of the 1992 act excludes from protection any industrial action act that is taken in protest at a dismissal following previous unofficial action.

Removal of section 223 would therefore mean that if an individual breached their employment contract by taking an official unprotected action, and been dismissed for this breach of contract, their colleagues would be able to take protective action based on their opposition to this dismissal. This of course providing that they have met the other conditions for protected action as set out in the 1992 act. We don't believe it is right to allow industrial action to be called based on the dismissal of those who undertake prohibited unofficial industrial action.

In the same way as there are clear protections for as there are clear protections for those taken industrial action, there must be protections for those taking unofficial industrial action. Turning to amendment 240, second reaction is currently unlawful in the UK. Allowing it would allow parties with no direct stake in the dispute to take coordinated action potentially escalating the industrial action. Biting the scope for picketing beyond an individuals own place of work could increase the risk of disruption to employers and the public and allow industrial disputes to escalate beyond their original context and across different employees.

It would also undermine the carefully balanced framework that protects both the rights of workers and the wider public interest. This could have a disproportionate impact on essential services and the wider economy with significant consequences for all. And I would say also to my Noble Friend that the ILO protects trade union activity. It doesn't grant an unrestricted right to second reaction. International law allows governments to impose restrictions when necessary to protect the economy and maintain public order. So I'm very sorry to say that we can't support his amendment.

On amendment 241, again tabled by my Noble Friend Lord Hendy, section 225 excludes from protection from liability any industrial action that is conducted to achieve the recognition of a union by an employer, other than the employer of the union taking industrial action. We don't consider that this type of industrial action is proportional or suitable. Indeed we believe that industrial action should only take place where there is a dispute between a group of workers and their direct employer a second reaction can be very disruptive to the economy.

The expanse restatement of the Noble Lord suggests the amendment is intended to allow industrial action to secure recognition for collective bargaining. For clarity, this is already permitted under existing legislation. However protection does not extend to action taken against an employer not directly involved in the dispute as this constitutes a secondary action which remains prohibited. Amendment 243 tabled by my Noble Friend Lord Hendy aims to give trade unions more freedom to choose which constituencies they will ballot. Section 228 of the trade union relations act 1992 lays down a general principle that if workers have different workplaces then they should be separate ballots for each workplace.

The purpose is to ensure that workers at one workplace where the majority of union members did not favour industrial action cannot be called out on strike purely because there was a majority in favour of action at some other large workplace. But there are existing exceptions which allow aggregate balance in some circumstances set out in section 220 8A. The amendment would remove 8A. The amendment would remove sections to -- children 28 and a separate workplaces as a matter of course.

The governor does not support this approach as it allows further manipulation of constituencies to provide for the maximum chance of ballot success. Amendment to a June -- amendment 2 42 would remove the obligation of disclosure of the ballot to a relevant employer. To ensure employees can adequately prepare for in potential industrial action we feel it's only fair and appropriate that they are notified of upcoming ballots. The government therefore does not support removing the requirement for unions to provide notice of an industrial action ballot to the relevant employer.

Finally, turning to amendment 253, to which my Noble Friend Lord Hendy and my Noble Friend Baroness O'Grady gave a very impassioned contribution, I would like to start by acknowledging that prison offices are some of the finest public servants. I also want to make it absolutely clear that attacks on our absolutely clear that attacks on our officers recently attacked. Though their work is largely out of view of the public, prison officers play a vital role in keeping both the public and those in our care safe.

And as a result they are prevented from taking industrial action under the current legislation. As compensation for that restriction, their pay is governed by the independent prison services pay review body process. The government has committed to accepting the recommendation from the review process except in exceptional circumstances. This year the governor has accepted all 13 of the independent recommendations put forward by the pay review body. This year's award since an increase of at least 4% fall operation prison staff delivering another real-time pay rise on top of the one provided last summer.

This will bring the starting salary for an entry-level officer on salary for an entry-level officer on the national rate of 39 hours from 34,494 to from £34,494-£35,875. The award has been announced much earlier than last year, recognising our commitment to accelerating the pay review body timetable to deliver a timely pay award to staff. But industrial action even if only partial would create unsustainable and significant risks to safety and security in prisons. The prison service has limited contingencies available to deal with industrial action, relying on a narrow group of operational managers with some potential for a very limited support from the police and army in some circumstances during such incidents.

The prison service and the POA have developed a strong working relationship in recent years, and as the governments hope that this position continues going forward. So I would say to my Noble Friend that we do continue to work with both sides, and we hope we can find a more substantial way forward on these issues. With this in mind, I'd like to ask my Noble Friend Lord Hendy to withdraw his amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb for her support and her attention to amendments to it and 29 attention to amendments to it and 29 and to action 41 and her economic analysis of inequality and the role
23:08
Lord Hendy Portrait Lord Hendy (Labour)
-
-
of trade unions. I think Baroness O'Grady, I thank her for developing that by explaining the purpose of these amendments being to restore somewhat the balance of power. I also think of the amendment dealing with prison officers, I feel somewhat guilty that I wasn't able to in my speech give you time to the subject of the prison of. I just note one additional point though, that the prison offices in Scotland of course you have the right to strike, and it seems inexplicable to me that those in England and Wales and Northern Ireland should be deprived of it whilst those in Scotland enjoy it.

I thank Baroness Coffey for her contribution. She didn't deal with the requirements of international law. Instead she put forward a case which we've heard before, which is essentially a case of special pleading that the circumstances of the United Kingdom justify non-compliance with international law. I don't think that that's an argument which is capable of success. The Noble Lord Lord Jackson I think rather misunderstands the position of international law and the theory of dualist and monarchist regimes.

The United Kingdom is a dualist regime, which means that the obligation of international law. On the citizens -- falls not on the citizens, trade unions are other bodies in United Kingdom. It falls on the state itself, and the obligation to comply with international law is that of the state, not of the citizens within it. It mentions European can. That is somewhat different because Parliament has made the European can and, most of it part of UK law itself. That's a different thing altogether.

I'm not arguing that international law, the provisions that I have explained applied directly in the United Kingdom or in United Kingdom courts or tribunals. The obligations are on the state to conform to those obligations which they have ratified. Noble Lord Lord Hunt regards these measures as dangerous and retrograde step. He regards the current regime over the last 40 years or so as being very successful. On the contrary, I'm with Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb in regarding the legislation of the 1980s as having led to powerlessness, poverty, inequality, insecurity of work and insecurity of earnings.

I disagree with his analysis in which he describes the consequences of some mythical fantasy world of his own imagination. I just say this about the 1970s, we don't have time to go into it. For all its faults, it was the most equal decade in British history in terms of wealth and income. And the consequence of the 1980s legislation has been to reduce collective bargaining coverage from collective bargaining coverage from over 80% to something like 1/4 today, which is the essential cause of inequality and poverty.

And finally, my Noble Friend Baroness Jones I thank her for her attentive and detailed response, again we must agree to differ in our conclusions, but I just add that we can't go on being damned year after year by these international supervisory bodies. There has got to be some way of resolving Britain's non- compliance. With that, I beg to withdraw whatever it was I moved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is at your pleasure the amendment is withdrawn? By leave withdrawn. is withdrawn? By leave withdrawn. Amendment wooden 40 and 241 not moved? 242, 243 not moved. We now come to the final amendment today, come to the final amendment today, group 11. In clause 65, amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

242 Lord Goddard of Stockport. An interesting night has been had by all. I think more ammunition has by all. I think more ammunition has been thrown in the laps of these benches than in any other night of
23:13
Lord Goddard of Stockport Portrait Lord Goddard of Stockport (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
benches than in any other night of the entire debate. But that's unintended consequences, never mind first advised to speak to the important group of amendments which address the key aspects of industrial balloting process and wish to highlight my own preppy amendment to urgent 44 and 246 which focuses on a robust mandate for industrial action and ensuring clarity around the balance. And I think the ministers for making time to meet with me last week to understand the rationale of these probing moments and Baroness Coffey for signing these amendments, my new best friend for at least the next 45 minutes.

Amendment 244 as a probing but question whether removing the requirement could weaken their democratic legitimacy. In the process can have conceit make significant consequences for workers in the public is clear the ballots genuinely reflect the clear will of the membership and would seem obvious to me, and we've spoken tonight about calls from all over the world and all of Europe, but there is another cork month as the court of public opinion. And when you hear of people having strike balance with turnouts of below 20s, low 30s, you really must question the legitimacy of the argument for what the balances for if you can't at least get 50% of the workforce to take part in the ballot.

Amendment 246 compartments this by proposing reduction in the current twelvemonth ballot Monday to six months. This aims to change to ensure that the result of ballots reflect members current views and circumstances, avoiding situations where an outdated mandate could be used to justify industrial action. Together these amendments seek to balance the need for F efficient union reputation and accountability and relevance and ensure industrial action remains the last resort supported by a clear and timely Monday first equally important to say if other amendments to supply the process such as the making ballots more accessible online.

Adjustments to notice periods in sectors where industrial action carries serious consequences like carries serious consequences like I'm sceptical of some of the amendments from the opposition which would reduce -- remove the clause from the Belfast this risks grating unnecessary confusion for industry and employers who need clarity for legal challenges and changes this bill would introduce full stop removing provisions at this stage could undermine certainty and complicates planning making it harder for parties to understand their rights and obligations under a new framework.

Whilst these changes are intended to improve clarity and fairness in election procedures the government must carefully consider the wider implications of lowering thresholds or extending ballot periods. We must protect both workers rights and the collective action and the need for transparency and confidence in the process will stop I look forward to the Minister's response on these points and potential refinement for these positions in further meetings. I beg

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to move. Amendment proposed, enclose the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, enclose the 65 leave out subsection 2. -- In clause 65 was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clause 65 was I would like to speak to my amendment 251 a which stands in my
23:17
Lord Hutton of Furness Portrait Lord Hutton of Furness (Labour)
-
-
amendment 251 a which stands in my name. If I do that I would like to draw the attention of the House to the interests I have disclosed in the register, I chair the operating company that runs London Luton airport. Much in this bill I think is to be welcomed, it will deal with some of the manifest gaps in our framework of employment law and will strike a better balance of rights in the workplace and I strongly congratulate my noble friends for bringing this bill forward and stop my amendment addresses this question of balance.

Ministers have repeatedly emphasised the importance of balancing the need for better protections for workers and a simplified less complex framework for industrial relations law alongside the legitimate and reasonable concerns of employers about flexibility in the regular three costs of additional legislation. Being both pro-business and pro-worker is a laudable aim, but it will depend on this balance being properly struck. I believe 71 as it is currently drafted does not strike the correct balance as it affects UK airlines. Because this caused directly, but probably inadvertently, brings into play in any future industrial action involving UK airlines the regulations concerning airline passenger compensation set out in what is known as the industry as UK 261 which would impose potentially significant costs onto airline operators in any future industrial dispute.

This regulation gives passengers the right to compensation if a flight is cancelled less than 14 days before departure. Unless there are, according to the regulations, extraordinary circumstances. Compensation can be anywhere between £110-£520 per person depending on the length of the flight, not the value of the ticket. Unions are required under the current law to give 14 days the current law to give 14 days strike notice to any UK airline operator, allowing flight to be counselled without incurring potentially enormous claims of compensation from passengers.

The regulations and the primary legislation are in this context I think extremely and entirely harmonious. Clause 71 would change the current careful balance and expose airlines to significant claims for compensation, as in future if the bill becomes law only 10 days notice of strike action would be required. An important ruling of the European Court of Justice in 2019 made it clear that Justice in 2019 made it clear that strikes by an airlines own staff are not to be considered as extraordinary circumstances under UK 261.

So we have an obvious problem. I cannot believe ministers intended this outcome, because put simply there is no balance here. Uniquely in the sector the law with this women eight against airline operators. My amendment does propose a solution to this, UK airline employees should continue to be required to provide 14 days notice of strike action. I do not believe my amendment raises any fundamental issues of principle, trade unions should and must have the freedom to take industrial action, but employers also have the reasonable expectation that the law will remain neutral, it won't favour one side over the other.

But I'm afraid clause 71 does precisely that as far as the airline sector is concerned. If my solution is not considered acceptable to my noble friend in the Frontbench I hope she will be able to tell me how she plans to deal with the situation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm embarrassed to keep your Lordships even a few minutes more,
23:21
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea Portrait Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Conservative)
-
-
Lordships even a few minutes more, but I stand to support Lord Goddard's amendment, but also to support Lord Jackson's stand part to 69 and introduce my own stand part opposition to clause 66, thus I go further than Lord Goddard even though I very much support his words. Why is clause 65 in combination with clause 66 so damaging? Lord Goddard was quite right to focus on the democratic legitimacy of clause 66, 65's provisions but there is a further even more key set of problems with these clauses, and if you will permit me at this very late hour for which I apologise, I will give a very brief review of the history.

First let's look at days lost to strikes in the 1970s. In 1970 10 million days lost to strikes. In 1972, 24 million days lost to strikes. In 1979, 30 million days lost to strikes. The winter of discontent. So we consequently have the Thatcher reforms which outlawed secondary action, band strikes conducted for political reasons, regulated picketing, required secret ballots for strike action and made trade unions legally accountable for actions taken in the name, which enabled unions to restore control and reduce the number of unofficial strikes which had been a major source of the growth in strike activity.

In the 60s and 70s. The results post Thatcher through to the 2020s, strikes on average were less 2020s, strikes on average were less Industrial peace directly as Industrial peace directly as a consequence of those reforms, no more winter discontent. This was enormously valuable for example for the Blair and Brown governments of the noughties. Yet the government bill seeks to eliminate very little of the specific Thatcher reforms. Lord Hendy's amendments just discussed do make an attempt at that, and I'm glad to hear the government sensibly declined his invitation.

However, even though the government apparently sees the sense of leaving most of the Thatcher reforms in place, it does in clause... 65 and 66 securely seem to be looking to find other ways to unionise the private sector landscape. If it succeeds there will be inevitable consequences for the U.K.'s economy. Last week it was observed that unions were a current time mostly confined to the public sector in the UK, but nobody asked why that is so. It's obviously because public sector workers have a monopoly of employment so can enforce their will, and timid governments seek to placate them so as to be able to appear at least to be in charge.

What is the impact of this? Multiple public sector strikes and excessive wage settlements in the public sector. The cost of which are now directly leading the Chancellor to her current dilemma of a runaway deficit plus underserved public services such as social care and child welfare and an impending debt crisis. What will clauses 65 and six D6 collectively do to the union landscape in the UK? For 65 removes path to a -- two a of clause 2660 the ballots be valid you no longer have any floor for the percentage of employees voting.

Clause 66 alters part to a three so only a majority of those voting would be required for strike to go forward. For one businessman that I spoke to just today who was utterly startled by this news, running, he runs an SME employing 36 workers. For him if say one third of them, 12 people, votes, and only six of those 36 employees vote to strike, then you have a strike. Not hard to find 6/36 employees to vote for a strike, but is that as the noble Lord Goddard said, pointed out, democratic? Will the electorate's heart warm to this quantitative gerrymandering? As I described just now, we all see the impact of unionisation in the public sector.

What will happen in the private sector if this bill in the undemocratic manner that Lord Goddard is so rightly decried, passes? I described last week in this chamber some of the past, where unionization destroyed industries such as the London docks and the present, whether public is tormented by public-sector strikes ranging from dustbins to doctors, from teachers to train drivers. This present day public sector malaise, if it spreads to the pipe -- private sector will, as my noble friend Lord Hunt made clear, take us straight back to the 70s and the winter of discontent.

If the government are sensibly not really proposing to change much of the Margaret Thatcher reforms which brought industrial peace to the private sector at least, why is there any need to bring in these new anti-democratic changes? Does the government really think that allowing strikes to go forward with feasibly only 10% or even less of employees wrote -- voting for the strike would be seen by the public and indeed by the other 90% of the employees of that company as anything that -- but outrageous.

Even more strikes, even more outrageous wage settlements, even more yawning deficits, even Darrow say, the very large and this time real economic backhaul. If the government -- black hole. If the government proceeds with this changes the inevitable industrial strife will be laid at their door for the Labour Party saw what happened to them in the 1979 election. As a result of the winter of discontent. Why are they now seeking a similar fate in 2029? I urge them to withdraw law 66 and indeed clause 65.

-- Clause 66.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise briefly to speak to the amendments I signed, I don't
23:28
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
amendments I signed, I don't actually wish to add anything on those two amendments, 244 and 246 in addition to what Lord Goddard has already said because he was straight to the point and I agree with him absolutely on those matters. I wanted briefly to turn to clause 71 stand path and also Lord Hutton's amendment 251 a. I think Lord Hutton explained very eloquently again about why when we are getting into this level of legislation does it really matter about going from 14 days to 10 days? Actually it does, and the wider consequences of some of these legal changes which need to be recognised.

In terms of the practicality of some of this legislation, so it would be very helpful to hear from the Minister why that particular move is being made. The other reason for me posing entirely the core 71 standing path would be -- or to be more accurate is probably about subsection B, it's about the categories. What worries me is about the NHS. Trying to prepare for strikes when you don't know exactly, or you never actually know exactly how many people will go on strike when you are running a hospital or parts of the NHS, having a clear sense of what capability you are still going to be able to run is absolutely critical in order for patient safety, for patient getting patient safety, for patient getting better, and I hope that if they consider Lord furnaces amendment when it comes to the airline industry, I hope that ministers will also consider carefully the NHS in its deliberation because that generally can mean the difference between frankly somewhat life-and- death to be less dramatic, whether or not a whole series of operations will need to be cancelled for many patients across the country, and I genuinely believe recognising that health unions are currently issuing their ballot papers that they should be carefully considering about what

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the impacts of this new clause would It's a pleasure to follow my Noble Friend Baroness Coffey and my Noble Friend Lord Moynihan, but also the Noble Lords Goddard and Hutton, the Noble Lords Goddard and Hutton, and I will come back to their and I will come back to their amendments shortly. But I rise now to speak the amendments to 45, 251.B and the clause stand part of clause
23:31
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
and the clause stand part of clause 68 standing part of my name. On the clause stand part, this clause represents the dangerous step backwards. Your Goddard objected to this in the sense that he thought it might introduce a lack of clarity, but the fact is that this clause itself is a step backwards in transparency and democratic accountability that this House must not allow to pass unchallenged. Because the provisions that clause 6860 Eve, notably subsections 2.B to 2.D of section 229 are not bureaucratic obstacles but fundamental pillars of informed democratic participation.

They require voting papers include a summary of the dispute, specify the types of industrial action proposed and indicate when such action is expected to take place, not unreasonable burdens, the basic information any voter needs to make an informed decision. Democracy thrives on transparency not opacity, so when we ask working people to vote on whether to take industrial action, a decision that may affect their employment, their families livelihoods and future prospects, surely they owed the clear competence of information about what Consider Consider the Consider the absurdity Consider the absurdity of Consider the absurdity of what Consider the absurdity of what this clause actually proposes.

It's a ballot paper that asks I prepare to take part in industrial action short of a strike? Without specifying whether this means a work-to-rule, overtime ban or refusal to cover additional duties or any combination of actions. And how can any reasonable person make an informed choice without knowing what they are agreeing to participate in? The government may argue that these are requirements imposing administrative burdens on the trade unions which is not a couple of groups tonight. But since when did we consider informing voters to be an administrative burden rather than democratic duty? We can accept a general election ballot failed to specify what office candidates were seeking what the candidates stand for so why should we accept industrial balance with less information? That the more they serve to protect union members themselves clear information helps ensure the workers understand not just what they are voting for that the potential consequences of their actions.

This protects both your interests and those of their unions by reducing the likelihood of disputes over the course or scope of nature of mandated action. Turning to amendment 245, I agree with my Noble Friend Lord Moynihan and Lord Goddard's amendments, so I rise to speak to this amendment though I must emphasise that my primary concern is not with the amendment itself but the government's fundamentally flawed approach to this critical issue. To be absolutely clear, the 50% turnout threshold for industrial action ballots should be maintained.

This they should exist for a very good reason because ensure strikes and other industry action have democratically legitimacy as pointed out, and they represent the will of a substantial portion of union membership and not million activist minority. If the government is determined to weaken these democratic protections however, and regrettably it appears they are, then they must not compound this error by hiding behind secondary legislation. Businesses across this nation deserve better. They need to know the regular three framework within which they will operate, theme to which we return to number of times to this bill.

They can't plan for investment, assess risk making planning decisions when fundamental aspects of industrial relations are left hanging in regulatory limbo. The governance approach creates precise uncertainty that undermines economic certainty and job creation. So we urge the government to reconsider entirely and maintain the 50% threshold, provide the certainty businesses need in the democratic legitimacy that industrial action requires. But if the government is insisting that they are going to lower the threshold, which we think will be disastrous, then it should be on the face of the bill so we can scrutinise it fully, which is what my amendment does.

As my Noble Friend Lord Moynihan pointed out, a 20% pressure could lead to only 20% May 20 % of the workforce supporting strike action in the House deserves the opportunity to examine and obey such fundamental changes properly and not have them smuggled through in Statutory Instruments with minimal parliamentary oversight. To speak very briefly to the Lord Hunt's amendment, I can agree with him more. I think it would be very regrettable error if this bill were to inadvertently introduce an unintended consequence of potentially having fines for airlines for reasons that not really are any fault of their own.

Is to be supported and the hippie returns to the theme. My mam 251.B proposes a vital but modest extension to 14 days until the action can result in the railway sector. This is not the workers rights but rather a recognition of unique role our railway system placing the economic and social fabric of the nation. It's not just another industry as my Noble Friend Baroness Coffey pointed out. It's the secular three system of the economy and moves millions of passengers and vast quantities of freight every single day.

When railway services are disrupted, the effects cascade through every sector of society from healthcare workers unable to reach hospitals to students missing examinations to businesses losing millions in productivity. In the current tender notice period proposed is simply insufficient for the complexity of railway operations. I could go on, but I think I've said enough on the subject. For initial days may seem modest, but in the context of the operations of railways and airlines, represent the difference between ales and manage disruption, allows time for proper contingency planning, for negotiations to continue and the travelling public to make alternative arrangements.

With that I shall wind up, but for now I hope the government is paying attention and will at least listen to these carefully considered amendments.
23:37
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
I think the Noble Lords Lord Sharpe of Epsom, Lord Goddard of STPO were my Noble Friend lords handy for tabling amendments on the subject of industrial action ballot mandates thresholds unnoticed. Despite the late hour, I recognise there is significant interest here and will try to do justice to all this amendments and discussion of clauses standing part of the bill we have but before I go into the detail and make it clear that a lot of this relates to we are discussing relates to the repeal of the great majority of the Trade Union Act 2016.

There was a clear manifesto commitment that this government and I think it's worth just framing why the context... And anyway speaks to a lot of what Lord Moynihan mentioned. Far from supporting the economy the strike legislation in the 2016 act will inherit from the opposition did actually prevent strikes first we asked more days but we had more days of strikes in France in 20 in 22 and 23 and cost the taxpayer 1.7 billion.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. I thank him for giving way. He and others keep referring to the and others keep referring to the 2016 act, but these are all amendments to the trade union and consolidation act of 1992. That we have been addressing in this have been addressing in this particular section.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

particular section. There are definite elements of what the group amendments we're talking about to relate to the 2016 talking about to relate to the 2016 act and I was simply setting out the act and I was simply setting out the context for the remarks, but perhaps the Noble Lord will let me make some progress and if you still not satisfied towards the end of the speech we can spend more time on these matters. As a % and 7 million working days were lost strike action in 23, up from two 5 million in 22, and these were the highest annual and these were the highest annual number of lost working days since 1989.

Frankly the 2016 act did not achieve subjective -- the objective of reducing strikes and in fact made things worse. Turning first to amendments 244 tabled by Noble Lord Goddard and 245 by the Noble Lord Sharp of Epsom, both sought in different ways to remove the repeal of the 50% industrial action ballot turnout threshold. The bill is drafted repeals the threshold in its entirety returning to the situation pre-2016 were only a simple majority of members voted in favour of strike action were required for industrial action to be deemed lawful.

We want to create a positive and one framework for trade union demonstration that provides constructive engagement, respect the democratic mandate and reduces bureaucratic hurdles. The Dave repeal of the 50% pressure will be set out in regulations at a future date. But the intention this is with the establishment of a ballot in as an option for trade unions, and we hope this will ensure industrial action mandates will have demonstrably broad support. Turning to clause 66, and to meet Lord Mann hands can concerns, this clause meets the consolidation act and reverse the change in section 3 of the 2016 act.

Section 226 is amended to omit subsections 2.A to F and six define public services to have, those are health, fire services, education, transport, decommissioning of nuclear installations and management of radioactive waste and spent fuel and water security. As for clarity. These define public services to have the support of the lease 40% of those for the industrial action to be valid. Alongside clause 67 -- 625, trade union will only need a simple majority of those voting the ballot to vote in favour of industrial action the industrial action to be deemed lawful.

This was the case prior to the Trade Union Act 2016. This causes a key part of the government's agenda and again I want to be clear this is part of our commitment to repeal the Trade Union Act 2016. Turning to amendment 2 for six, tabled by Lord Goddard of Stockport and also speaking to the oppositions clause 69 standing part of the bill, Lord Goddard's amendment seeks to retain the current six-month mandate period for industrial action following successful ballot. The government wants to strike the right balance between ensuring the industrial action is based on recent votes but also reducing the need for rebalance.

Strike action is always a lost result, costly to workers as well as employers. This reason we consulted on the appropriate length of time before a trade union should re-ballot their members. It's worth pointing out in the consultation obviously trade union were very keen not to have any need to re-ballot for mandate at all. Following the consultation the government has set a mandate period of 12 months, not Of industrial action concludes by then. This will reduce the cost of balloting and allow mandates to go for long when they are likely to have continued members spot without prolonging disputes or permitting action to be caught based on more than a year old Monday.

Again retaining the six-month mandate will prevent the government from the delivering on this. Moving to clause 68 and the opposition from standing 68 and the opposition from standing part from Noble Lord Sharp of Epsom, the purpose of this clause is to reduce the information that unions are required to include on a voting paper for industrial action through repealing section 5 of the Trade Union Act and introduce additional requirements under section 229 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act holidays night 92.

Section 5 of the 2016 act required trade unions to include on the ballot paper some issues in dispute between the employer, trade union, tough industrial action that amounts to action short of a strike and indication of the time period in which those are to take place. Repealing section 5 will not remove all of the information requirements. Under section teaching in the ballot paper will still require unions to ask its members on the ballot paper whether they support industrial action and which type of action they want to take part in expressed in terms of whether this is strike action or action short of a strike in his comments chopper Epsom made an analogy with ballot papers not containing details such as the names of candidates or the nature of the election.

I would respectfully point out there is a danger in making that analogy. I don't think that's a fair analogy. After all. So wouldn't expect democratic elections -related office to carry the kind of mandate threshold that they are insisting that trade union ballots should have, and if you want to say that you either make an analogy that democratic elections are like union ballots, or they are not, I think there is a bit of a pick and makes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

going on here. Fair enough I accept this point when it comes to perhaps general On On your On your position On your position the On your position the purpose On your position the purpose of On your position the purpose of the clauses to amend 234 of the trade union labour relations Consolidation act 1992 to change the mandate period for industrial action following successful ballot that might ballot from six months to 12 months without the possibility of extension.

Which we have already discussed at amendment 246. The clause brings amongst other things brings the process back in line with the position before the Trade Union Act 2016 with many other enforcement bodies of employment law, for example is Peel's against the decision of Employment Tribunal is only considered on points of law, not points of fact. Turning to a permanent 249 -- amendment, this would require unions to publishers of pallets on a publicly accessible website removing the consolidation to notify members and employers directly.

The government recognises it can impose a communications burden on trade unions especially were first class post is used to provide a notification. However this risks reducing accessibility uncertainty of this information entitled to receive this in our view and undermines transparency and thus confidence in trade unions and the balloting process will stop relying solely on a website that they will actively seek out information could actively seek out information could lead to disputes over whether that education has occurred, direct litigation got ensures transparency and clarity.

To address concerns about the ministers of burden associated with these commune occasion standards the government intends to update the code of practice on industrial action ballots and notice to employers to encourage the use of email in place of post where practicable. This preserves direct medication while reflecting modern engagement and reducing costs. These reasons the government afraid will not support this amendment. Now amendment 251 by Lord Hendy seeking to supply requirements and trade unions issuing notices. While the Procedures, these notice provision server vital purpose of ensuring that employers have the necessary information to plan for and respond to industrial action.

The government is already reducing the minimum notice period from 14 days to 10 days and reducing specific requirements that unions must provide, such as disguising the number of employees in each category. This risks removing too much detail potentially leaving employers unclear what the nature of the action being proposed this. So again afraid this is why the government does not support this amendment. The last amendment in this group are amendment 251 a table by my noble friend and amendment by my noble friend and amendment The government does not support either of these amendments because our general position is not to make sectoral carveout from the limitations and conditions which apply to industrial action and this of course is consistent with our appeal of the 40% support thresholds for industrial action ballots minimum service levels act and set further conditions on industrial action to public services.

The same statutory notice period for industrial action across all sectors ensures a simple rule that is clear for all parties involved and employers in all circumstances like applies for the is then for employers to manage their industrial relations and the business is accordingly however I would like to say to Lord Hutton that he has raised specific concerns around the airline industry and we are happy to meet understand his concerns further. Clause 71 standing part of the bill raised by Baroness Coffey, alongside our manifesto commitment to repeal the 2016 act government is committed to bringing a new error of partnership that fosters meaningful Employers and unions.

This is grounded in cooperation negotiation. We recognise the importance of striking a balance between allowing for an elective/-- effective strike action while also enjoying -- ensuring employers are able to prepare for industrial action when it has to occur. I should say Clause Clause 71 Clause 71 makes Clause 71 makes targeted Clause 71 makes targeted changes Clause 71 makes targeted changes to section 234 a of the 1992 act attempt by the process by which trade unions provide a notification. Specifically we are removing one element from the requirements, the need to specify the number of affected employees in each job category.

Employers will continue to receive essential information including the overall number of employees affected, the categories they belong for Mac two and the workplaces affected the strikes a balance between bureaucracy and allowing employers to plan to mitigate risk. Clause 71 also reduces the notice period from 14 days to 10 and consequently section 8 of the 2016 act would be repealed. Moving from a 14 day notice period to attend a moat notice period is a more taxable approach that reflects modern industrial relations practice.

We acknowledge that some groups are -- argued for a return to the previous seven day notice period and others for the 14 day period to be retained. In our view 10 days is a balanced compromise, it allows a balanced compromise, it allows Disruption and knock-on impact while respecting the right to strike. That reflects feedback we've had from consultation and does enough to allow employers time to prepare was reducing the burden and uncertainty faced by trade unions. Taken together these reforms and provide industrial action framework and reduce unnecessary burdens and risk reduce unnecessary burdens and risk I focused on DHS I wasn't under centre sector -- NHS, think you categories for top I appreciate it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is late so if the Minister wants to write to me I would be happy to receive that. I think for the sake of brevity and time while staying awake I will and time while staying awake I will undertake to write the noble Lady. undertake to write the noble Lady. Finally clause 72 six to reverse the effect of section 10 of the 2016 act removing the requirement under section 20 removing the requirement section 20 removing the requirement under section 22 a of the act 92 for trade unions to appoint Pickett trade unions to appoint Pickett supervise and meet other administrative burdens in relation administrative burdens in relation to the supervisor.

Such taking reasonable steps to provide their name to the police. As the period of disruption I refer to between 2022 and 24 is shown, the ministers of and 24 is shown, the ministers of requirements are your aquatic hurdles that make your heart of the trade unions to engage in good faith trade unions to engage in good faith The law into the 21st century and fix the foundations for industrial relations that has not delivered for workers, employers or unions. However the Government does recognise that regulations regarding picket lines are important.

To be clear the bill is only repealing those measures introduced by the 2016 act in relation to the role of a picket supervisor, other legislation under the amended code of practice on texting will remain in effect. Picketing must take place at lawful location, must be peaceful and those in the lines must not intimidate or harass workers who choose to attend work. We are changing the law back to what it was prior to 2016 and it's working well and understood by all parties. In summing up I hope my justification for the new clauses and how they meet the government intentions have been clear to my noble Lords and...

I ask Lord Goddard of Stockport to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw amendment 244. I thank the Minister for his
23:53
Lord Goddard of Stockport Portrait Lord Goddard of Stockport (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for his reply and also the other speakers that have spoken in this group. Lord that have spoken in this group. Lord Hutton talked about the balance and the need for airlines, I think balance runs through this conversation on this group of amendments. Lord Moynihan of Chelsea talked of value and when he throws all these numbers and gets very agitated, he wants the balance to be right between the trade unions and not to swing the wrong way to the other side where it gives historical history of what happened -- what it's like when that happens.

I understand what he's saying and I thank him for this contribution. thank him for this contribution. Baroness Coffey almost useless as a Trojan horse but I do accept that because as usual her intervention was exactly on pitch. She speaks about her clarity, honesty and the NHS, and again there are that many different attitudes, instances within this group of amendments that touches all parts of the country. From aviation to the NHS and back again. Lord Sharpe, he made his position very clear he wants transparency, he wants responsibility, he really wants to know where the reasonableness is in the government's reluctance to accept these amendments.

I think today could be a bit of a watershed because the debates have in having today as report stage looms could be where some of these battlelines are going to be drawn. These are fundamentals, I do not think it is fundamentally right that a 50% corporate ballot is an unreasonable thing. All I'm asking is the government takes these comments we've all made tonight back and when we come at report stage there is some cognizance and understanding that these are not just antiunion, we are supporting unions, but the union has to be seen to be democratic and accountable to the wider public.

I hope they take the comments and criticism I am giving in the weights offered which is to help to make a better bill be more acceptable to everybody. I will read the Minister's comments in Hansard because he did go through to cancer, and a little bit concerned when he talked about balloting being a positive and modern experience. I voice found that to be quite the opposite if you are voting for industrial action, it's really a soul destroying thing to actually have to do.

Benefit of the doubt, we from this party will listen, we will hope you take on board some of our positive criticisms tonight and when we come back with this set of amendments, because I just think the set of amendments among all the others could be the contentious ones and you have the opportunity to Lance that Boyle early and I think to make this work fundamentally better for the employees and the employers, getting tonight set of debates right will go a long way to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

delivering that. On that basis I beg to withdraw my amendment. Is it you're just pleasure this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it you're just pleasure this amendment is withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn for the amendment 245 not moved. The question is that clause 55 stand part of the bill. As many are of that opinion say, many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The "Contents" have it. The question is that clause 66 stand part of the spill stop As many are part of the spill stop As many are of that opinion say, "Aye", and of the contrary, "No". The "Contents" have it.

The question is that clause have it. The question is that clause 6 to seven stand part of the bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye", and of the contrary, "No". "Aye", and of the contrary, "No". The "Contents" have it. Question is that clause 68 stand part of the bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye", and of the contrary, "No". The "Contents" have it. Amendment 246 Lord Goddard not Amendment 246 Lord Goddard not moved. The question is that clause 69 stand part of the bill.

As many are of that opinion say, "Aye", and of the contrary, "No". The of the contrary, "No". The "Contents" have it. The question is that clause 70 stand part of the bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye", and of the contrary, "No". The "Contents" have it. -- As

**** Possible New Speaker ****

many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". I beg to move that the House do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now resume. The question is that the House is resumed. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The "Contents" have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

"Not content". The "Contents" have I beg to move the House do now adjourn.
00:30
None Portrait Oral questions: Reducing delays for taking a driving test Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-

House of House of Lords House of Lords - House of Lords - 10 House of Lords - 10 June House of Lords - 10 June 2025.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page