Great British Energy Bill

Baroness Noakes Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 18th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, paragraph 4.52 of the Companion says that it is usual for a Member making a maiden speech to be congratulated by the next speaker only, on behalf of the whole House, plus the Front Benches if they wish. I shall be complying with that paragraph.

This is a seriously flawed Bill. At first sight, it looks a bit like the 2023 UK Infrastructure Bank Act, which set up the body that has renamed itself the national wealth fund, although it is of course no such thing. I shall return to that organisation later, because it seems entwined in how Great British Energy will work. I did not support the 2023 legislation in principle or in its detail, but it does at least have more substance than the Bill before us today. I shall explore that in Committee, but I flag for now that the 2023 Act sets out key governance requirements and requires periodic reviews of the UK Infrastructure Bank’s effectiveness and impact, which are mysteriously absent from this Bill.

Another major difference is that much of the detail of the operation of the UK Infrastructure Bank was available to the House in the form of a draft of the framework document, which was then finalised after the Act received Royal Assent. Importantly, that document covers strategic objectives, which have already been referred to, but also operating principles and investment principles, as well as details of the company’s capitalisation and financial objectives. It was quite substantial and ran to 28 pages. What do we have for this Bill? As far as I can see, we have nothing at all. The so-called founding statement published by the Government in July said that a framework would be established “in due course”. I hope that the Minister can update the House today on what that time-hallowed phrase means in practice for the framework for Great British Energy. I am sure that he is well aware that his job of getting this Bill through your Lordships’ House will be very much easier if the Government publish the draft framework document well in advance of Committee.

For example, we need to know how the financial regime for Great British Energy will work and what its financial remit will be so that we can be sure that this Bill contains appropriate guardrails and accountability measures. We also need to understand what money will be involved and how it will flow into and out of Great British Energy. The Labour Party in opposition talked up a green prosperity plan with a price tag of £28 billion every year, but that of course did not survive contact with reality. It eventually ended up with a plan to capitalise Great British Energy with £8.3 billion of new money over the whole of this Parliament. It might be a shadow of the earlier plans but it is nevertheless a significant sum.

One of my pastimes is reading Budget documents, so I have been hunting for the £8.3 billion in this year’s documents. I have to tell noble Lords that there is no £8.3 billion in the Government’s spending plans. Instead, there are a couple of references in chapter 3 of the Red Book to

“providing funding to kickstart Great British Energy”,

amounting to £125 million, which the Minister referred to earlier. That comprises £100 million capital funding for clean energy projects and £25 million to set up the Aberdeen headquarters. However, that £125 million is for 2025-26 only. There is no sign of anything after that.

Intriguingly, chapter 4 of the Red Book goes on to say:

“As GBE is established, the investment activity will be undertaken by the National Wealth Fund”,


which apparently will help Great British Energy

“to make initial investments as quickly as possible and draw on the National Wealth Fund’s resources, experience and pipeline of projects”.

I have never understood why Great British Energy was needed, given the existence of the UK Infrastructure Bank/national wealth fund, which my noble friend on the Front Bench referred to earlier. That was set up to do lots of the green things referred to in the Bill before us.

Can the Minister explain the relationship between Great British Energy and the national wealth fund? Will the wealth fund’s pipeline of investments be made by Great British Energy or by the wealth fund? Will the investments be funded from Great British Energy’s £100 million, which applies only for 2025-26, or will they come out of the wealth fund’s rather larger budget, which by the way is also rather hard to find in the Budget documents?

This is all rather opaque, and that is before we try to understand what kinds of investments will be talked about. Will they be loans or equity investments? If they are equity investments, will they be controlling stakes or minority stakes? If they are loans, where will they sit in the creditor hierarchy? To what extent will the private sector be involved? We have answers to none of these questions.

The UK Infrastructure Bank—and I assume this will continue to apply to the national wealth fund—is supposed to make a financial return on its investments, and it is also required to adhere to the additionality principle, so that it does not crowd private finance out. Do these requirements apply to Great British Energy? We need answers to that.

This is not only a Bill with almost no content, it is a dangerous Bill, because it grants almost unfettered powers to the Secretary of State for Energy and Net Zero, as other noble Lords have pointed out. He sets the statement of strategic priorities; he decides what financial assistance is given and on what terms; he has an untrammelled power of direction; and, as the owner of 100% of the shares in the company, he has the power to appoint or remove any or all of the directors. Parliament has no say in any of this and, as I mentioned earlier, it does not even receive a periodic review of effectiveness and impact, as is the case with the UK Infrastructure Bank, also known as the national wealth fund.

We need to look at all these areas in Committee, but I hope that, when the Minister winds up today, he will explain what transparency and accountability arrangements the Government see as ensuring that Parliament can effectively hold Ministers to account.

Lastly, to pick up on a point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, can the Minister confirm that the Subsidy Control Act 2022 applies to Great British Energy? Assuming that the promised £8.3 billion finds its way to Great British Energy somehow, there would be limitless opportunities for Great British Energy to subsidise activities and distort competition. It is clearly important that it is fully subject to the 2022 Act and I hope that the Minister will confirm that.

I am not a fan of the big state, or of state involvement in commercial activities. Nor do I worship at the altar of net zero. I do not like this Bill at all, but I accept that, as a manifesto Bill, it will become law. It is, however, the duty of your Lordships’ House to work during the passage of the Bill to achieve clarity, accountability and transparency about Great British Energy, all of which are currently missing from the Bill.

Net Zero (Economic Affairs Committee Report)

Baroness Noakes Excerpts

Monday 16th October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my registered interests as an investor in a number of energy companies. I too am a member of the Economic Affairs Committee, and I pay tribute to the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Bridges of Headley. It is a shame that he is not able to be here to lead this debate, but I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for introducing the report so ably.

It has taken 15 months for there to be a debate on this report and, after all that, we are allowed only five minutes. Our Select Committees should be an integral part of how Parliament holds the Government to account, but they are being sidelined. I hope that the Government will do better in future to allow Select Committee reports the time they deserve in your Lordships’ House.

A lot has happened in the energy space in the last year since we reported. I particularly welcome the Government’s recent announcements, which have brought a welcome sense of pragmatism to the delivery of net zero. As we heard, the report focused on how much investment was needed in order to deliver net zero by 2050 and where that investment would come from. The Government’s response has not shed much more light on this. But the even bigger questions, which the report did not set out to look at, are: who pays, when they have to pay it and how much they have to pay. These are the biggest challenges facing the delivery of net zero.

The Government have never been clear with the public about how much the cost of achieving net zero will affect them. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Hammond has recently said that successive Governments have been “systematically dishonest” about it. The public have little understanding about how green levies are already inflating their energy bills or about what they will pay for in future, including the impact of delivering a nuclear programme. We need a proper grown-up debate with the public about what costs they are prepared to accept.

The advocates of net zero often assert that, in the long run, the costs are likely to be outweighed by the benefits. Long-range forecasts, such as those from the Committee on Climate Change, are only as good as the underlying assumptions on which they are based, and it is not surprising that many of those assumptions are highly contestable. They were also made at a time when interest rates were near zero, and today’s “higher for longer” environment does not improve the calculations.

The renewables sector lives on subsidies and, as we heard, it imposes costs by way of extra investment in grid infrastructure and in back-up storage or generation capacity for when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow. Consumers pay for all of that. As my noble friend Lord Frost pointed out, renewable energy itself seems to be getting more expensive rather than less, as the latest auction round showed. Who really knows what renewables will end up costing consumers, not in a hypothetical 2050 but in three, five or 10 years’ time? A 25-year forecast has no meaning to those who pay bills in the short and medium term. Today’s energy consumers should be centre stage in the conversations about the cost of delivering net zero.

The country as a whole remains supportive of the Government’s net-zero ambitions, but polling shows that support weakens when the impact on bills is factored in. As energy bill payers discover what net zero is costing them, and as those costs increase, so support for the policies will likely decrease. At the end of the day, net zero will be delivered in this country only if the British people are prepared to pay for it, either in their bills or in higher taxes. The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero described net zero as a form of religion. Religious belief is all very well, but it does not pay the bills.

It was never sensible to sign a blank cheque to deliver net zero in a country that accounts for less than 1% of global emissions, and we certainly ought not to sign a blank cheque for some notion of global leadership. This House must never forget that the British people will decide what happens, whatever the politicians and the metropolitan elite think.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Baroness Noakes Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 22nd May 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Noakes]

1: After Clause 17, insert the following new Clause—
“Retained EU law dashboard and report(1) The Secretary of State must within the period of 30 days beginning with the day after the end of each reporting period—(a) update the retained EU law dashboard;(b) publish and lay before Parliament a report on the revocation and reform of retained EU law.(2) The report must—(a) provide a summary of the data on the retained EU law dashboard (as updated under subsection (1)(a));(b) set out the progress that has been made in revoking and reforming retained EU law during the reporting period to which the report relates;(c) set out His Majesty’s Government’s plans to revoke and reform retained EU law in subsequent reporting periods.(3) The reporting periods are—(a) the period beginning with the day on which this Act is passed and ending with 23 December 2023; (b) the period of 12 months beginning with 24 December 2023;(c) the period of 12 months beginning with 24 December 2024;(d) the period of 6 months beginning with 24 December 2025.(4) If the Secretary of State does not meet the requirements in subsection (1) in relation to a reporting period, the Secretary of State must—(a) explain why in a statement made in writing, and(b) publish the statement and lay it before Parliament.(5) In this section—“retained EU law dashboard” means the database on retained EU law maintained and made publicly available by the Secretary of State;“revoke” has the same meaning as in section 14.(6) In subsection (2), “reform” includes “replace”.(7) In relation to the report under subsection (1)(b) in respect of the period ending with 23 June 2026, ignore subsection (2)(c).”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause requires the Secretary of State to update the retained EU law dashboard and report on the revocation and reform of retained EU law in periods up to 23 June 2026.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 1 introduces a new clause after Clause 17. Amendments 2 and 3 in this group are consequential.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Callanan for adding his name to the amendments and I am even more grateful to my noble friend’s officials, who have produced these amendments at great speed in response to the less elegant amendment which I moved on Report last week. It is a great privilege to be given the opportunity to table these amendments in my name.

The underlying concept behind these amendments is transparency about the progress that the Government are making in dealing with retained EU law. This Bill now revokes only a portion of that law, but it will remain an important task for the Government to decide what to do with the rest of the laws on our statute book and ensure that they support the needs of the UK economy and our citizens. It represents a once in a generation opportunity to achieve significant regulatory reform.

Amendment 1 builds on the retained EU law dashboard, which pulls together all retained EU law and shows progress in reforming that law. While some have criticised the dashboard because the number of items of retained EU law continues to increase, the core information that it contains, including visual representation of progress, has been a great achievement. Subsection (1) of the proposed new clause places an obligation on the Secretary of State to update the dashboard. It also requires the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament reports on the revocation and reform of EU law.

These reports will do three things: they will summarise the dashboard; they will set out progress that has been made in revoking and reforming retained EU law; and, importantly, they will set out the Government’s plans for revocation or reform. Information on the Government’s plans does not currently get reported in a comprehensive way, and so this should be a valuable data source both for parliamentarians and for those outside Parliament. The first report will be for the period up to 23 December this year, and there will be three more reports, the first two covering the years to 23 December 2024 and 23 December 2025 and a final one for the six months until 23 June 2026. The end date is, of course, the 10th anniversary of the great referendum vote and coincides with the final expiry of the powers in this Bill to reinstate or revoke EU law.

I know that noble Lords support effective accountability of the Executive to Parliament, and I believe that this new clause will improve Parliament’s ability to oversee how well the Government are delivering on their Brexit promises. I very much hope that by the time of the final report, 23 June 2026, if not earlier, the Government will have demonstrated that all retained EU law has been dealt with, whether by a positive decision to keep it intact or by revocation or reform. Last week the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, were less than enthusiastic about my amendment on Report. It is perhaps wishful thinking to think that this new and improved version will result in a change of heart, but none the less I commend it to them. I beg to move.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, this amendment, which I fully understand, places a lot of emphasis on the capacity of the retained EU dashboard, but there are some important deficiencies in its capacity, the most important of which is that it does not contain any post-devolution legislation. That can be demonstrated by looking at the schedule that has just been introduced into the Bill. There is not a single item of post-devolution material on it.

When the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee, of which I am a member, invited some officials who work on the dashboard to address us and explain how it works, we asked them whether there was any post-devolution retained EU law on the dashboard. They told us that there was not, that devolution material was not there. We asked whether it was the intention that it should include post-devolution material and they said that it was not and that it was not designed to do that.

So there is a question I would like to ask, and I think it is fair to ask the Minister, about what the position truly is on this. I do not think he has ever fully acknowledged, at least in this Chamber, the fact that the dashboard does not contain post-devolution material at all. Is it intended that the dashboard should be updated, as is the obligation in the amendment, to include post-devolution material? If so, when will that be done and is it clear that the devolved Administrations are able to do that in time to meet the first deadline, which is the end of this year? They have a great deal to do already with the amount of work which is required of them by the Bill, and to have to work on updating the dashboard as well might be beyond their resources. This is a very important issue. I am not trying to undermine the amendment, but I want to understand its capacity to do what the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, told us it is intended to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Well, they will hold the Government to account. Of course, Parliament is able to hold the Government to account in many different ways, but particularly, with the reform programme, there would be an extensive programme of statutory instruments. Parliament would be able to debate and accept those instruments or not, as it usually does.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I thank my noble friend Lord Callanan in particular for answering the points raised on devolution. I do not think he answered the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on subsection (4), which is a useful addition because it means that if a report is not laid, we get another opportunity to be told that it has not been laid, and thereby to trigger any accountability mechanisms. I regard it as an important additional subsection, and I shall certainly be using it as a precedent in amendments to other Bills in future.

Amendment 1 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Noakes]

2: Clause 22, page 24, line 28, leave out “17” and insert “(Retained EU law dashboard and report)”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential upon Baroness Noakes’ new Clause.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Noakes]

3: Schedule 2, page 99, line 31, at end insert—
“(3A) In section (Retained EU law dashboard and report) (retained EU law dashboard and report), for “retained EU” (in each place it appears, including the heading) substitute “assimilated”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential upon Baroness Noakes’ new Clause.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Baroness Noakes Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 17th May 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Noakes]

51A: After Clause 19, insert the following new Clause—
“Report on retained EU law(1) Within 6 months from the day that this Act is passed, and every 12 months thereafter, the Secretary of State must prepare a report setting out the following in respect of each item of EU derived subordinate legislation or retained direct EU legislation which has not been revoked by section 1—(a) whether and to what extent it remains in force, including the effect of any modifications made whether under powers in this Act or otherwise;(b) details of any plans to modify, repeal or replace it.(2) Any reports prepared under subsection (1) must be laid before each House of Parliament.(3) This section ceases to have effect after a report showing that all items of EU derived subordinate legislation or retained direct EU legislation have been modified, repealed or replaced.”

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Jackson of Peterborough, Lord Frost and Lady Lawlor for adding their names to Amendment 51A.

The Government have made very significant changes to the Bill, with the new schedule revoking around 600 pieces of retained EU law, in place of the previous plan to revoke all extant EU law, broadly, at the end of this year. As I said on Monday, I welcome this pragmatic approach, but it has created a new need for visibility of progress in dealing with the total population of retained EU law, and my Amendment 51A tries to give that visibility.

Specifically, my amendment introduces a new clause which calls for the Secretary of State to prepare a report within six months of the Bill passing and every 12 months thereafter. That report should show the status of all items of retained EU law, other than those being revoked by the Bill, together with the Government’s plans for dealing with them. Subsection (2) of the new clause proposed by my amendment requires the reports to be laid before Parliament, and subsection (3) says that the reports should continue until all the items of retained EU law have been dealt with.

Last week, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade assured the other place that the revocation of the 600 bits of EU law in the new schedule was not the limit of the Government’s ambition, and I would certainly like to believe that. My fear is that once the Bill is passed, government departments will heave a sigh of relief and move on to things that are more interesting than working out what to do with their retained EU law.

Legislation cannot make the government machine complete the task, but it can provide for transparency, and I see this as having two benefits. First, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade will have a tool at her disposal to keep the pressure up on her Cabinet colleagues to do their part. Secondly, and perhaps as importantly, Parliament will have information which it can use to hold the Executive to account.

I was already concerned about how to monitor progress on dealing with retained EU financial services legislation. That legislation has been carved out of the Bill and is dealt with in the separate Financial Services and Markets Bill. In the other place last week, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade claimed that 500 pieces of retained EU law will be repealed by the Financial Services and Markets Bill by the end of this year. Unfortunately, this is not true. Schedule 1 to that Bill contains long lists of financial services laws which are identified for repeal, but repeal will be activated only when the Treasury decides to do so, and it will certainly not be by the end of this year. The Treasury has been clear that the process will take “a number of years”, and it has no plan or timetable to complete the work. I already have some amendments ready for Report on the Financial Services and Markets Bill next month.

Given the initial drafting of the Bill, I thought that the Treasury’s approach to retained EU law was going to be the exception, but it now appears to be the new normal. What happens to retained EU law and when it will be determined by the various government departments is not clear at the moment. I want to ensure that progress on dealing with retained EU law across the whole of government is kept in sharp focus.

I drafted this amendment in haste once the Government had tabled their own amendments to the Bill last week. I am fairly sure that the Minister’s lawyers will be able to tear it apart, but I hope he will see it as an opportunity to create a transparency and oversight mechanism that will complement the Government’s new approach to retained EU law. I beg to move.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Noakes on this issue, and I am delighted to have had the opportunity to support her by adding my name to the amendment. Noble Lords will remember that during the passage of the EU withdrawal Bill there was a great deal of discussion about whether this House sought to gain for itself executive powers—that is, to become the Government in directing government policy with respect to the withdrawal Act and exiting from the European Union, rather than performing its proper constitutional role, which we all concede is effective scrutiny and oversight.

This amendment is a helpful compromise in seeking to direct Ministers, the Government and the Civil Service to a place where we can all agree. I am sure that noble Lords who earlier this week supported Amendments 2 and 4 and spoke to Amendment 76, which I gather later today we are likely to divide on, will welcome this amendment—you need congestion charging on the road to Damascus, because the traffic is quite heavy at the moment. Those who were happy to turn a blind eye to the huge corpus of EU legislation from 1973 to 2020 are now praying in aid the importance of scrutiny and oversight. That being so, this is a good vehicle to give effect to that, particularly the need for periodic reviews of the Government’s progress on the dashboard.

As I made clear when I spoke earlier in the week, people are watching how this House and the Government ensure that the decision they made in 2016 is given proper effect. While I understand that this House cannot instruct the Government, this is a good way of achieving compromise. I expect a majority on all sides of the House to give my noble friend’s amendment their strong and emphatic support, and I fully expect, since the Minister has an opportunity so to do, an amendment to be laid at Third Reading that consolidates this amendment. If that is possible, I think there will be a strong consensus as the Bill goes forward. In the meantime, I strongly support the amendment and I hope noble Lords will give it their support.

--- Later in debate ---

However, I understand the sentiment of the amendment, and it is important that Parliament and the public are able to hold the Government’s feet to the fire and ensure that our momentum continues on retained EU law reform. Therefore, I fully support the spirit of my noble friend’s amendment, but the Government would appreciate some additional time to consider some of its finer details and, in particular, to consult with parliamentary counsel on what precisely is the most appropriate drafting. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend Lady Noakes will agree to withdraw her amendment, but I am happy to give her an undertaking that the Government will give further consideration to the matter ahead of Third Reading, with a view to working with my noble friend to fashion a similarly spirited amendment.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, particularly my noble friends who have supported the amendment. I was surprised at the tone of the comments from the Peers on the Benches opposite, both of whom resorted to ad hominem attacks. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, focused on me, and the noble Baroness on the Labour Benches focused on what she called the “tigers” on my Bench—I am sure that they will wear that badge very proudly.

My noble friend the Minister understands why this is an important thing to put on the statute book, particularly to show our commitment to driving forward reform to support growth and competition in our economy and to get rid of the regulatory burdens holding our economy back. I was pleased to hear that my noble friend accepted the principle of my amendment, and it does not surprise me that he could not accept its wording. I thank him for that acceptance; I look forward to working with him and hope that we may reach some conclusion to this before the Bill is returned to the other place. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 51A withdrawn.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Baroness Noakes Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 15th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, as a committed Brexiteer I was a strong supporter of this Bill, and it will not surprise noble Lords that my initial reaction to last week’s announcement of the amendments that my noble friend has so ably just introduced was a big disappointment. It would have been a marvellous achievement had we achieved by the end of this year an understanding of what to do with retained EU law—in terms of retaining it, modifying it or repealing it—but in my heart of hearts I never actually thought we would get to that position, so I completely accept on pragmatic grounds that what my noble friend has brought forward today is the right thing to do, and I fully support that.

I completely understand what lies behind the sentiments expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, in his amendment, supported by other noble Lords who have spoken, but I think that noble Lords have missed the big picture here. There were problems with the existing Bill, such as not knowing exactly which bits of retained EU law were going to be included, because that number seemed to have a shape-shifting quality and it was very unsatisfactory for parliamentarians to legislate with a lack of certainty. It was also troubling that large swathes of law could have just disappeared from the statute book without any parliamentary intervention whatever. In addition, there was the possibility of a tsunami of statutory instruments modifying EU law by the end of the year, which would have put our procedures under great strain, whatever sifting or other mechanisms were put in place to ameliorate it. So the Government have made significant changes with the amendments that my noble friend has brought forward today. If the noble Lords put it in that context, they will see that the Government have been very responsive to the issues that have been raised by noble Lords during the passage of the Bill, and I hope they will not let the best be the enemy of the good with the amendments that they have tabled.

With the absence of the sunsetting, we have another problem: how do we know that we are ever going to finish the task of examining, and deciding what to do with, retained EU law? We have 600 laws in the new schedule, but we know nothing about what is going to happen to the other pieces of retained EU law. That is why I have tabled an amendment, which we will not reach until Wednesday, asking for some form of reporting by the Government so that at least we keep under scrutiny the nature of that process. I hope that between now and our next Report day—

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, there are references—for example, in Clause 16—to a sunsetting date, so there are parts of the Bill that retain sunsetting and it has not entirely been departed from. I see the value of sunsetting and I am in favour of reforming our rules book, but it would be a mistake to think that we were taking the brake off completely; that is not the way the Bill is constructed.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

With the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, I think the main substance of sunsetting has been removed by the amendments put forward by my noble friend because we do not reach a cliff edge at the end of this year, or such a later date as might have been put in place, for the whole of retained EU law to disappear if it had not been dealt with. That is the issue that I was referring to.

Perhaps I could just complete what I was saying. I hope that between now and our next day on Report we can have some constructive dialogue with my noble friend the Minister about how we can have some kind of process, information sources, or whatever, to ensure that what we have lost with these amendments—which is ensuring that we deal with the whole of retained EU law—can be salvaged.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, it is not my intention to detain the House for long, because I think the House wants to move to a decision, but I will make one point about what might be described as the big picture. Today’s debate takes its place in the long history of debates about Europe and will be interesting to read afterwards. However, about a couple of weeks ago—I forget exactly how long ago it was—we had a short debate in this Chamber on the state of parliamentary democracy. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, replied to it as the Minister. We did not have enough time, but it was a useful debate to have. I suggest to the House only that the sense expressed during that debate, that over a long period Parliament has lost power to the Executive and that what we need is to reclaim power for Parliament over the Executive, is best encapsulated by Amendment 2 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. I very much hope that the House passes it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 73 and 74, to which I added my name. I will preface my remarks with a brief comment about the attempts by the Government Front Bench to curtail people’s right to ask questions of other Members during speeches this afternoon. That is most unfortunate and particularly ironic in a debate that is pivoting on the issue of the powers of Parliament to scrutinise legislation. I hope that the Government Front Bench will think again about that line of action.

I welcome the Government’s concessions in the Bill, but I still want to remark on the length of time it took them to wake up to the inevitable—the realisation that the Bill was impossible to implement and requires fundamental change. I am deeply grateful to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, for taking that message from this House to the Government. At the same time, having woken up to the need for change, the Government have now given us an impossible timescale in which to consider the 600 pieces of legislation they have identified—we have 48 hours from now. This remains a very flawed Bill, therefore, and represents a major accumulation of power in the hands of the Executive. That is power seized from both this Parliament and, despite important government concessions, the devolved Administrations.

The amendments to which I have added my name are of the most minor nature. Indeed, in Committee the Minister gave us cause to hope that the Government might look positively on such a change. They are minor—an extension from 10 to 15 days for the committees to look at this legislation—but they are nevertheless important because, without that minor change, the sifting of legislation will present a major hurdle.

The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, referred to the report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in his speech on the first group of amendments. That report was called Losing Control?. I am delighted to now be a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee under the able chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who is in his place. These minor amendments ask simply for Parliament to be given time to do its job. The Government have accepted that their initial Bill was impractical in its timescale. They now need to accept the lessons of that and, even at this point, to accept this minor change.

This Government have broken new boundaries by producing increasingly skeletal Bills and relying heavily on secondary legislation to flesh out the real meaning of their legislation. SIs are not immune to error. The Home Office recently accumulated a record of having to withdraw one in five of its SIs and remake them. That is not a record of perfect legislation. The Government need to accept that they make mistakes.

We have government by SI now, but the rules and procedures for scrutiny of SIs are locked in the past when primary legislation was much more detailed. If we are to be forced to work this way, procedures must change or there will be major legislative errors. I support the amendments put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and so ably explained by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, as a good, practical way of dealing with the new approach to legislation.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I would like to offer a brief comment on Amendment 76 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. Like many Members of your Lordships’ House, I find the way in which we deal with the increasing amount of secondary legislation fundamentally unsatisfactory. I pay tribute to the work done by my noble friends Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and Lord Blencathra and their respective committees last year, and to the important debate held in your Lordships’ House.

We should move towards re-examining how we handle secondary legislation going forward. However, I do not think that the right way forward is to produce one amendment in one Bill and try to say that it answers the problem. I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, because of his tremendous experience in the other place. But let us not pretend it is easy to find a good solution that will work with both Houses and produce the right degree of additional scrutiny without completely holding up the Government’s secondary legislation programme.

We should take time—I hope the Government will find time—to work between both Houses to find good, practical solutions going forward, but we should not legislate in haste in this Bill. We have secondary legislation procedures that have served us pretty well for a long time. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, referred to needing to deal with flaws in secondary legislation. They can already be dealt with; they do not need any special apparatus to do so. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, referred to the procedure whereby statutory instruments are withdrawn when flaws are pointed out. That is a part of our existing procedure, and it works perfectly well. Let us not pretend it is so broken that we have to invent a special procedure for the Bill.

[Lord McLoughlin (Con)]

My Lords, my name appears on Amendments 15 and 76, spoken to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. Following what my noble friend Lady Noakes has just said, I say: if not now, when?

It is clear from this debate so far that we sometimes feel that somehow all this European legislation was forced on us and we never wanted it. The simple fact is that we would have had to legislate for a lot of it ourselves. Actually, what happened was that sometimes it was gold-plated—not by Europe but by us. One thing we must be careful not to see happen now is future regulations coming forward and being gold-plated without Ministers necessarily realising what has possibly happened.

I have been fortunate in serving as a Secretary of State. I must admit: I cannot say that, when officials came to me and said that we would take something through on delegated powers, I said, “Well, I must really examine every last word of that particular piece of legislation”.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

Shame!

[Lord McLoughlin (Con)]

Yes, of course, shame—absolutely a shame. I completely accept what my noble friend is saying. It is a shame and a disgrace, but sometimes you get such a number of regulations coming forward that you might just let them believe what you are saying because you know you are not going to have to defend it in Parliament. That is something that I think my noble friend Lord Hamilton said a few moments ago. It will make a Government more responsive if they feel they have to defend it on the Floor of either the House of Commons or your Lordships’ House.

That is why we have had several debates, including, as my noble friend Lady Noakes said, the earlier debate as a result of the Delegated Powers Committee—which I now chair following my noble friend Lord Blencathra—and the committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Hodgson. It is a way to make sure that the Government are more accountable to the elected House as well as to your Lordships’ House, where we can also sometimes ask, “Has A or B been thought of?”. That is very much why I hope the Government will consider this in due course. As I said, the overall changes made to the Bill already are very welcome, but the number of changes, and the speed with which they have been made, makes us question, rightly, how well thought out the Bill was in the first instance.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Baroness Noakes Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd March 2023 Lords Chamber

My sixth and final point is this. When you sit and think, you must ask yourself, why is this Bill being put forward? Normally, as I understand the way we have traditionally been governed in this country, you work out the policy first and legislate second. What is happening in this Bill is that you legislate first and think second. Now that we turn to devolution, there is yet another problem. Had we proceeded in the right way, we would not be in the mess this Bill is getting us into. I suggest that if you look at the consequences for devolution, you see yet another reason why this Bill, a skeletal Bill, should not proceed. I shall add just one scintilla to that—it is a point I do not want to develop any further. This Bill is Henry VIII on stilts. Looking at a Bill of this kind, we have not yet examined whether you should put into such a Bill a clause that limits the Government’s power to override the devolution settlement. I do not know. This is a subject that we ought to be debating, but I think it unnecessary to add to the length of what has already been too long a speech on these points.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, since the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, used what I said earlier in aid of his arguments, I thought I ought to say a few words. First, unfortunately I do not speak for the Government in any respect. Indeed, the Government are generally to the left of my views, so my views are indeed my own. I have said that this Bill is about protecting service levels, in particular for those who have paid through their taxes for public services to be provided to them. That is the aim of the Bill. The means of the Bill is via trade union and industrial relations legislation. That is a reserved matter, and I think the Government have to accept the point.

Having said that, I of course agree that the devolved Administrations should be consulted on minimum service levels because they are bound to affect their citizens. I believe that the devolved Administrations would want to be involved in any consultation, to put across the views of their citizens as to the appropriate minimum service levels that their citizens should be demanding. However, I do not think it goes beyond that, and I do not think it is necessary to go to the extent of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, which talks about meaningful consultation. They are of course going to be consulted on these matters.

When the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, introduced Amendment 14, she very carefully said that elected mayors should be consulted. That is not what Amendment 14 says. It says that regulations cannot be made

“without the consent of the elected mayor for that area.”

That would mean, for example, that any minimum service level which affected a train service between London and Manchester could be vetoed by either the elected Mayor of Greater Manchester or the elected Mayor of London—or indeed Birmingham. That seems to me to be complete nonsense. I believe they should be consulted because they will want to input the views that protect services for the residents in their areas, but we should not go as far as requiring consent.

[Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)]

My Lords, I speak in favour of Amendments 19 and 49 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, which try to mitigate in one and contain in the other the level of interference that the Bill intends to make into areas that are clearly devolved. This is in a long line of legislation that has trampled over the accepted responsibilities of devolved Governments. The United Kingdom Internal Market Act, the Nationality and Borders Act, the Subsidy Control Act, the Elections Act, the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill and the retained EU law Bill are just a few of the Bills that have impacted on the devolved Administrations.

On this occasion, in the Bill’s list of six services to be targeted I found only one that was reserved and that was border security, though I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that airports and ports will be dragged into that. Health services, education, fire and rescue services, transport services and the decommissioning of nuclear plants are devolved responsibilities, and the elected Members of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Senedd are ultimately accountable for the delivery of these services. The Minister and his colleagues have no electoral mandate to interfere in these services. Not only does the Bill seek to allow government Ministers to interfere in devolved areas of competency but it does not even have the good manners to outline in the body of the Bill how they would use these powers. Parliament is yet again being asked to put its name to a blank cheque.

It may surprise the Minister to know that both the Welsh and Scottish Governments have respectful working relationships with trade unions in their countries. In Scotland, the fair work framework has a different model of industrial relations from that adopted by the UK Government. The framework states that there are many examples in Scotland and elsewhere of how the collective voice of trade unions working with employers has addressed the wide range of organisational challenges and contributed to organisational improvements. The Welsh Government are committed to the Fair Work Commission in Wales, which respects and encourages trade unions to have a significant role in workplaces, society and policy-making. How different that is from the approach taken by this Government. These fair work arrangements do not prevent industrial disputes but allow constructive dialogue between government, employers and trade unions, so that when disputes occur there is greater good will to resolve them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bryan, and to add to her remarks. I strongly support Amendment 49 and point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that the phrase in Amendment 19 of consultation implying a view to meeting an agreement is particularly important because in this Bill we are talking about devolved competencies directly, and I am afraid the track record has not been that good. Indeed, the Bill seems to have been announced without any prior consultation with the Welsh Government at all, and officials have been reluctant to share substantive information relating to the Bill which is not in the public domain but does affect devolved competencies.

In paragraph 141 of Schedule 7A to the Government of Wales Act it would seem that legislative consent is required over aspects of health, education, fire and rescue, and certain transport services. But the Welsh Government appear to be set to vote overwhelmingly to refuse legislative consent, and for good reason. As the Government themselves have conceded, the services are

“run differently in England, Scotland and Wales and are the responsibility of Scottish and Welsh Governments respectively.”

With that responsibility comes a requirement to set pay and terms and conditions of service, and those cannot be disentangled from strategic and operational decisions taken in Wales and Scotland. To give those powers to Westminster and override the devolved legislations would effectively undermine their ability to run the services that they run as effectively as they see fit to meet the needs of the population—the population which have voted those devolved Ministers into their positions in government.

There is a different approach to the unions, as has already been said. There is a model of social partnership, which I am familiar with in Wales. It was notable that, even going back to 2015, the junior doctors did not go on strike in Wales whereas they did in England, and the current rail strikes have shown a different pattern of working because an agreement was made with Transport for Wales.

It certainly is not incidental that this has been included in the Bill, because it threatens the Welsh Government’s ability to maintain a model that is interwoven with those responsibilities, as I have said. In fact, those services are essential to the running of the devolved nations. The approach would undermine accountability in Wales, as the Bill provides no role for the Senedd, despite the strong argument that it has the competences to legislate in areas contained in the Bill. The Secretary of State being able to set minimum service levels for local services in most parts of England is already questioned by some, but it seems almost an affront to devolved responsibilities to say that that could override the responsibilities in the devolved nations.

The consultation process set out in the Bill fails to specify who should be consulted; it is whoever the Secretary of State sees fit, and they do not seem to have to pay regard to the outcome of that consultation. That means there is no role for the Welsh Ministers, who are actually responsible for running the services. If the Bill is passed, the backdrop to negotiations undertaken in Wales will be fundamentally altered. There is a concern—a valid one, I think—that that could be used for political ends, because there is no protection in the Bill from a Secretary of State who wishes to provoke or prolong a dispute for political ends.

Sadly, no Minister in Wales or Scotland can take comfort from assurances given and being told that they will be consulted. Similar assurances were provided over the financial powers in the internal markets Act, but those are now being used to ensure that Welsh Ministers cannot take the decisions over EU successor funds provided in the form of the shared prosperity fund and the levelling-up fund. I hope the Committee will see that in order to maintain the integrity of the UK, it will be important to take Wales, Scotland and, I think, Northern Ireland out of the wording in the Bill.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

Has the noble Baroness realised that the Bill does not actually require any employer in Wales to issue a work notice? The only thing that the Secretary of State will be doing is setting minimum service standards. The implementation via work notices is entirely at the option of the employers, which will be either the Welsh Government or one of the various Welsh bodies that are answerable to the Welsh Government. I understand the point that she was trying to make, but she was implying that the UK Government were interfering in the operation of the services, which the Bill does not come close to doing.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

I remind the noble Baroness that we have already had a debate over the difficulty of setting minimum service levels and the dangers thereof. Minimum levels for nursing have already been set in Wales, for example, so we cannot disentangle the one from the other. That is the point that I was trying to make.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

That is even more wisdom from the noble Lord, Lord Balfe.

That concludes what I wanted to say about this group of amendments, and I look forward to hearing later, I hope, a word of consensus from the Minister in response.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has tried to damn my amendment with faint praise, so I had better explain it and my approach to this group of amendments.

First, I remind the Committee that this is not draconian legislation, as the noble Baroness has just suggested. It does not impose minimum service levels; it merely allows the Government to specify minimum service levels, which can then be imposed via work notices if employers so choose. That is all this legislation is doing.

This group of amendments, in various ways, is trying to make the process of establishing regulations specifying minimum service levels more difficult, and to make them harder to get through Parliament by putting more hurdles in their way. The Bill already requires consultation; indeed, consultations have already been published for three instances of minimum service levels, and that process will run its course. The departments will then produce their minimum service levels and the appropriate statutory instruments, which will be accompanied by impact assessments. All of this is perfectly ordinary practice; it does not need any of the amendments in this group.

I tabled Amendment 17 simply because the noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked in his Amendment 16 for an assessment of the impact on

“workforce numbers … individual workers … employers … trade unions … and … equalities.”

Just for the sake of balance, I wanted to remind the Committee that there is the other side: people who are affected by strike action and who want to receive services. The point of my amendment is to say: I do not support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, but if you are going require something such as this, it should not give just a one-sided picture; it should be balanced. To that extent, I am grateful for the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I am grateful for that gracious response from the noble Baroness. Whatever her motivation, I agree that service users should be included in that list, not least for the reasons set out earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Baroness Noakes Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate. We have already discussed at length the proportionality concerns about the minimum service level agreements being imposed per se, but now we get into the sanctions and consequences for trade unions in what will follow, but also for individuals. We must now talk not just about the vital human rights principle of proportionality that we discussed before but about the vital principle of non-discrimination.

This gives me the opportunity to reflect on an earlier exchange between the Minister and my noble friend Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway. There was a dissonance about this concept of victimisation. As I understand it, the Minister was saying, “For goodness’ sake. It’s not victimisation to say that there needs to be a minimum service level agreement to protect the public, and therefore there have to be work notices”. However, what perhaps the Minister did not hear or understand is that when you give employers the power to pick and choose between individual employees, we are opening up the Pandora’s box of abuse of power. When we legislate in your Lordships’ House, we have to guard against potential abuses of power.

If employers, scrupulous or otherwise, are allowed to pick and choose between individuals, some people will never be on the list but other people will be, and sometimes the people will be selected for that list on grounds that include their race, sex, sexuality and possibly even their role within trade union activity. I think that is the point my noble friend was trying to make to the Minister, and this is the power that is being handed to individual employers, in contrast with years of struggle for protection against discrimination, including discrimination on the grounds of trade union activity as well as membership.

If, as I fear, the Minister will not pause the Bill or introduce greater parliamentary protection before the powers can be triggered in the first place, please will he look at the powers given to individual employers over groups and particular employees in the workplace, because it is invidious and, I think, very dangerous?

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, it seems to me that the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Hendy, are finding yet another way to try to deprive the Bill of any effect. In their own ways, they are trying to make it entirely voluntary to take part in the provision of minimum service levels, if requested by an employer. That runs completely counter to the policy intent of the Bill.

If noble Lords think that the Bill needs to be modified in some way to reflect their concerns, it is incumbent on them to produce amendments which find a practical way through that. To simply, in effect, make compliance with a minimum service level work notice voluntary is unacceptable in the context of the Bill. Although I understand the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, makes, those issues are already covered by discrimination law. The concern she has about being selected on the grounds of sex, sexual orientation or race is already covered by discrimination law and does not need to be protected again in the Bill.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Does the noble Baroness accept that in Committee, there are two sorts of amendments: there are amendments which are very practical and designed to be used as a template for changing the Bill, and there are probing amendments? I point out that I made it very clear that the latest two groups I was speaking to were probing amendments. On that basis, I think her criticism is invalid.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for engaging so specifically and constructively in the debate, but I do not think she appreciates just how difficult it is, even under the present law, for people to go to a tribunal, with or without the assistance of lawyers or their trade unions, to demonstrate that they were picked on for one of these reasons. Now, in this Bill, a specific protection against unfair dismissal is being removed. An employer will say, “No, no, X, Y or Z was picked for this other reason. They are essential to the service”. It just happens to be the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, who is essential to the service every time and not, for example, my noble friend Lord Hendy, who of course is the expert. If I am always essential to the service and he is not, it will be very difficult for me to demonstrate that it was discriminatory, when the whole purpose of the Bill is, as the noble Baroness said, to remove protection from unfair dismissal.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

The purpose of the Bill is not to remove protection for unfair dismissal; the purpose of the Bill is to ensure that minimum service levels can be guaranteed for those who rely on the services, and we are trying to find practical ways through that. I was inviting noble Lords to find ways did not simply rip the heart out of the Bill.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

I just say to the noble Baroness that there is nothing wrong with conformity being voluntary. The whole basis of the ILO jurisprudence is that minimum service levels and requisitioning should be agreed voluntarily between the unions and the employers. In most of the countries of Europe where they have minimum service levels, volunteers are sought to provide the minimum service. That is also true in this country. We have been hearing for days about the local agreements that are reached in all the six sectors identified here.

That is done on a voluntary basis, and the people who do the work volunteer to do it. They speak to their union, and the union says, “Somebody has to do it; you’re going to do it”, and they say “Okay, fine if that is the price of having the industrial action and bringing pressure to bear to maintain our standard of living, that is the price I am prepared to pay”.

There is nothing wrong with voluntariness. It does not detract from the rest of the machinery of the Bill in setting minimum service levels and issuing work notices, if that is really what the Bill is intended to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, this group gives me the opportunity to speak to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. Earlier, she encouraged the Committee to be constructive when we debated whether an amendment was probing or constructive. Given the gestures from the Minister from a sedentary position, it is clear that, even if the Bill passes, there is room to specify these reasonable steps and new duties upon trade unions. That is my attempt to meet the noble Baroness half way and be constructive about a Bill that I think is hugely disproportionate.

With the greatest respect to my noble friend who just spoke, these amendments do not just expose a breach of Article 11, on freedom of association; they quite possibly expose a breach of Article 9, on freedom of conscience. I am afraid there are no right reverend Prelates here at the moment, but it is as if we were to say to the bishops, “We live in a modern, diverse democracy, even though we have an established Church, but it is now your obligation to actively encourage divorce and abortion.” Clearly, that would be ludicrous, and it is equally ludicrous to be saying to trade unions not only that, as indicated in Amendment 34, they should try to make their members aware of the legislation and of work notices, but that they should ensure compliance as well. The Government are making employers in relation to these public services the policeman for the Government, but it is a step too far to make unions the policeman for the Government as well—not least in the context of disputes which will continue to be lawful under this proposed legislation, but just some people will have to go to work.

Hence, I commend in particular Amendments 34, 34A and 35, which highlight that knowledge is one thing but ensuring compliance is another. They demonstrate at length that unions should not be disciplining their members for not going to work, and that picketing has to remain perfectly lawful, not least because most workers, we hope, or many workers, will still be entitled to go on strike, notwithstanding the minimum service levels and the specific work notices. The Bill needs to specify what is reasonable and what is required of trade unions.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

Does the noble Baroness agree that “reasonable steps” is a formulation used in a number of legislative formats? It has not been defined further on those occasions when it has been used in order to provide the flexibility to allow for the situation to be judged on its individual circumstances and, indeed, to allow for technological developments. What would have been reasonable, for example, in communication with affected workers 10 years ago could be quite different now. If we take the example of the duty to prevent bribery, “reasonable steps” is not defined in law and that is a virtue of the law, because it allows the situation to be judged at the time. That is why the Bill takes this pragmatic approach.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I totally agree, by the way, with the noble Baroness that there are areas of our common law in particular, and some statutes, where the inclusion of the adjective “reasonable” by itself will do the trick. I disagree that it is appropriate here because we are asking unions to do something that is inherently counterintuitive to their raison d’etre, which is to organise workers, in extremis, to go on strike. If one is saying to the union, “You are now having to push against the grain of your whole existence, the existence of your organisation, and your freedom of conscience and your association, which you are entitled to under the convention and the ILO”, and if one is pushing them in the opposite direction, one has to be very specific and proportionate about the nature of that totally counterintuitive duty.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Baroness Noakes Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 9th March 2023 Lords Chamber

The Prime Minister made it clear that he does not want the UK to withdraw from the ECHR. To my knowledge, he has not voiced any opinion on the ILO, but I do not think that withdrawing from that is on the cards either. So it is not sufficient for the Minister to downplay this report or, frankly, to disparage the convention. It is incumbent on the Government Front Bench to address and answer the serious questions set out in the JCHR report.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I will make comments on two aspects. First, it is not the case that the Bill is retrospective in effect because, by definition, it applies only to future strike actions. The fact that the strike action might have been initiated before the Bill is completely irrelevant. It applies to protect people who are suffering from the lack of services in the future, so it is not retrospective.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I do not understand why it is “completely irrelevant”. Is the noble Baroness saying it is irrelevant if people participate in a ballot, there is a democratic decision, a dispute is held, the mandate is proper, everyone knows their legal rights and responsibilities, and the unions have had to go through huge hoops to get there?

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

I am. The need for the Bill has been established by a lot of rather irresponsible action by some of the unions which has completely disrupted the lives of ordinary citizens. Remember that the Bill is designed to protect the lives of ordinary citizens and to balance their rights against those that the noble Lord referred to. It will apply only to future strike action by workers—that is the most important feature.

Secondly, I will address the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Both noble Lords who have spoken struggled to paint this as a very damning report. It is not: it does not say that the Bill does not comply with international obligations but instead says things like it is “difficult to establish” or that it “arguably” contains insufficient provision. Although I have great respect for the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and particularly its chairman, who is an acknowledged expert in this area in her own right, it is not the arbiter on whether bits of legislation comply with human rights law. At the end of the day, it is for the courts to decide. The Government believe that it is within our international obligations, and there are good arguments for that. We should not take the view of one committee of Parliament as being determinative, even if that committee were clear and unambiguous in its findings, which it was not.

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

My Lords—

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Baroness Noakes Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 9th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendments 3 and 4 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady. First, looking at Amendment 3, which seeks to exclude health services altogether, I think the key question remains: who wants this legislation? As the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, who is not in his place, asked in relation to Amendment 1: who is asking for this power that the Government are legislating to grant them? We have the Health Minister in the Minister’s place. I hope he can inform the Committee which bodies within the National Health Service have been knocking on his door, asking to be given the powers that are set out in this legislation.

The noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, quoted to us from the note that has been sent out by NHS Providers, which represents all the trusts in England, and it could not be clearer that not only is the legislation unwanted but it sees it as actively counterproductive to its efforts to work with the staff that it employs in order to deliver the service both on a day-to-day basis and during industrial action. We seem to be in a situation where the employers are saying that they do not want this, and the employees certainly do not want it, yet the Government are determined to stick their oar in and make a difficult situation worse. This potentially has significant short-term and long-term disadvantages that will be to the detriment of the health service.

I am sure the Government will say that this is about delivering health services to people in the United Kingdom, and we would agree that it is about that. The question is: what framework means that we are most likely to get those health services delivered effectively? It is one in which employers and employees are working hand in hand to deliver health services to people. It is not one in which we create artificial tensions between employers and employees, and it is not one in which we pass legislation and seek to impose measures that will increase those tensions and make things worse.

As well as NHS Providers, I have been contacted by a consultant who works in the health service, who said to me:

“Instead of focusing on minimum service levels on striking days, the Government should be taking action to ensure the NHS is safely staffed 365 days a year.”


We will come to amendments later on where we will talk specifically about that, but that is the prize—a 365-day-a-year service. That depends, crucially, on staff morale, staff recruitment—we all know that we have huge gaps right across the health service—and staff retention, which means making them feel valued. It certainly does not mean press-ganging them into working at times when they have exercised their legitimate right to withhold their labour because of an industrial dispute.

The consultant goes on to say:

“Instead of threatening workers and unions with heavy-handed tactics that put workers’ right to strike at risk, this means ensuring that there is meaningful engagement on pay and a commitment to enshrining and funding safe staffing. This would help stem the tide of doctors leaving the NHS every year for better jobs at home and abroad, in the best interests of the NHS and patient care.”


I asked the Minister this question at Second Reading; I will ask it again: is there anything in this legislation that the Minister can say, hand on heart, will help him and his department recruit more staff to the NHS and stem that flow away from the service?

On the specific consultations that the Government have put out, we now have one on the ambulance service; again, I have been talking to people who work in that service. First, I have to say that the consultation is one of those classics: if you ask people, “Do you want more or less service?”, who votes for less service? When the Government ask, “Do you want category 1 and category 2 or just category 1?”, I think we can reasonably predict the answer. But the consultation does not ask, “Do you want the Government to come to a fair settlement with ambulance workers so that you can have categories 1 and 2 all year round, delivered to a level of performance that would be a significant improvement on today’s level?” I think the Government would freely admit that they are failing on both categories today; again, we have to ask whether anything in this legislation will improve the service delivered by the ambulance service. There is nothing there.

The ambulance service points out that, if you include categories 1 and 2, that covers pretty much the entire service. It is pretty much business as usual that the Government are consulting on. In essence, they are asking, “Should we prevent ambulance workers going on strike?” That is the net effect of saying that the minimum service level is the entire service. Again, I think that there is some confusion there.

The ambulance service also points out that the Government are, in part, driven by the fact that they are failing to meet their targets. Now they are consulting on what should be in categories 1 and 2, so we may end up consulting on a minimum service that will itself have to change as the Government change their definition of what constitutes categories 1 and 2 because of the pressures on the ambulance service; for example, there are suggestions that some people may no longer be categorised as category 2 until a further assessment of their needs has been made. Again, we are consulting on something that may move as the consultation progresses. We have a problem both with the generality of the health service being included and around the specifics on the ambulance service.

I want to raise one further issue, which relates to the speed with which the legislation has been introduced. I am not a civil claims lawyer but I know that their job is to pursue all possible angles in favour of their clients. We also know that the NHS is already paying out more than £2 billion a year in compensation claims, including claims made for failures to deliver on the agreed levels of service for ambulances and emergency care.

This legislation could change that landscape in several ways. First, if the minimum service level has been defined yet there is still a failure, there will potentially be a claim against the Government who set that minimum service level. If I am a claimant lawyer, I am going to go for every angle; one of the angles is to say, “The minimum service level was insufficient so I am going to try to drag the Government into the case”.

If the minimum service level was set but the work notices were insufficient, I would go after the trust and try to bring it into the case, saying that the only reason my claimant suffered was because the hospital trust failed to deliver sufficient work notices. Even the existence of this law could fundamentally change the landscape for those claims. If you fail to exercise that law, which the Government keep saying is a measure of last resort, claims could come in to the effect, “You had a law for minimum service. I suffered at the hands of the NHS because there was no minimum service level in place, but the Government could have done something because the legislation was there”. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, nodding, which is encouraging given her legal experience.

I hope that the Minister can say in response, “We’ve worked all this out, don’t worry. When we drafted the legislation, we figured out the effect of having law on minimum service levels, questions around work notices of minimum service levels and how the responsibility of the Government, the trust and others would factor into the landscape of compensation claims once all this has occurred.” I fear that the Minister may not have all that to hand and, frankly, that it has not been done. This is another example of what happens when you rush legislation. There are all kinds of consequences to this Bill because it was not introduced in a thoughtful, careful manner but to fill a government communications grid: “We have strikes; we want to show that we are doing something for the public; we will bring this in.” The health service element creates more questions than answers. I appreciate that the Labour Front Bench has tabled amendments that would remove that.

Amendment 4, which lists the different professions that might be expected to be included, is also interesting. The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, mentioned earlier that we need foreseeability. The fact that there is no foreseeability in a phrase such “health services” makes it hard for any of us, and certainly for those professions, to understand whether they are in or out. I suspect that the Government will say that where the Opposition would exclude a list of professions, they would include it. Even that would be better than what we have today. If they do intend to include physiotherapists, pharmacists and other workers in the legislation, they should list them in the Bill.

It is not acceptable to use a phrase such as “health services”, which does not inform those hard-working professionals. There is not one profession on that list that does not have a staff shortage right now. We have this list of professionals, but we do not even have the decency to say to them in the legislation, “By the way, at some point you may be subject to minimum service levels being imposed and work notices being sent to you as an individual professional in that job.” We leave it open. We leave it for them to guess.

Both amendments make sense, in that they test the Government’s rationale for including health services and they have thought through the implications for health services in the longer term and try to get more predictability and certainty. If a particular group of professionals are to be included, let us see them in the Bill rather than just saying, “Well, ambulance workers, yes, they’re clear; but for the rest, maybe, maybe not.” That is not good enough when we are talking about people’s essential rights and things which may affect them personally, as they will be press-ganged into coming to work against their wishes at some unknown future date.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Allan, says “Who asks for this Bill?” He then tries to portray that as a binary thing—either workers and unions, or employers, claiming that neither of those groups wants it. However, he and others who oppose this Bill are missing out on a crucial third group: the users of services. This is the Government acting on behalf of the users of services generally. By taking the power to create minimum service levels, they are giving themselves the power to act for the users of services if the need ever arises. Broad terms are used to allow the detailed minimum service levels to be devised within that. Obviously, when regulations are produced they must be very precise, because they will affect whether individual workers will have to comply with work notices.

I should also say that no employer is ever forced under this legislation to issue a work notice; it remains entirely voluntary. Noble Lords should start to see the Bill in a much broader sense, rather than that of trying to create yet more disharmony between employers and their workers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I support both the amendments. I have sat in my office all afternoon listening to this debate. At times, it was difficult to concentrate, simply because there was a degree of repetition. I do not blame noble Lords for that; I blame the Government—as usual. At least I got lots of old paperwork sorted, which was real progress for me.

Despite trade unions sounding the alarm on unsafe levels of staffing in public services such as hospitals for quite some time, the Government refuse to implement legislation ensuring safe levels of staffing on any day other than a day when workers have chosen to withhold their labour by going on strike.

These amendments lay bare the ridiculousness of the Bill. Under this legislation, the Government will force workers to go to work against their will, with the perverse outcome being that strike days could see services with a higher number of staff than on non-strike days. It sounds like slavery to me. Is it not slavery when you force people to work against their will?

The Government propose that this is done by employers writing out a list of names of workers who must turn up and work on a strike day. Unlike on a normal work rota, workers will not be allowed to call in sick, take parental leave, take bereavement leave or even be in hospital having had a major condition of some sort. This legislation drags the workers in and forces them into a temporary state of servitude. That goes against every single principle of common law, contract law and employment rights in this country.

I have a cunning plan which would save the Government on this issue; it would just need a few tweaks in the Bill. If the Government want to make it illegal to go below minimum staffing levels in hospitals and the ambulance service, why do we not do that 24/7 and 365 days a year but, instead of the unions getting fined, we fine the CEOs and Government Ministers? That way, if you want someone to be responsible for old people waiting eight hours for an ambulance, you put the legal responsibility on the people at the top, not at the bottom. This seems eminently sensible and much more practical. Let us have laws that apply to the people in charge rather than target the overstretched staff on the front line, who are struggling for better pay and conditions. The Government will not be able to deliver either my idea or the Bill as it stands. In fact, this Government is too incompetent to deliver a pizza, so why should they be able to deliver a Bill such as this one?

If the next Government have any sort of involvement with the Green Party, they should know that we have committed to repealing this legislation and all other anti-trade union legislation passed since the Thatcher Government—that will be quite an exercise. We can create safe, well-run public services by working together with workers and unions, not by using authoritarian laws to strong-arm them into the workplace no matter how badly their working conditions get. I hope that the Government see sense on this, but I can tell from the looks of noble Lords on the Front Bench that it is not going to work.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, it is quite difficult to follow that speech. I do not think that anybody would want to encourage the dissipation of the Green Party in any Government, so the noble Baroness’s ideas will not go very far.

I will not talk about the NHS, which all noble Lords have spoken about so far; I will address only Amendment 13 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, but not in the context of the NHS, to which he addressed all his remarks.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

No, I did not.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

The amendment says:

“Levels of service set by regulations … may not exceed the lowest actual level of service … on any day”


in the previous 12 months. Let us take the example of train services. If we have the system closed because there is a lot of snow—which, I gather, there is at the moment in the north of England—the answer under the noble Lord’s amendment would be that the minimum level of service was no service. If one of the days in the previous 12 months had been a strike day, the answer might be no service. If any of the days in the previous 12 months were on a weekend or a bank holiday, which of course they would be, the answer would always be a very low level of service, which would not necessarily meet a minimum level of service for the workday population trying to get to work. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that his amendment is not correctly drawn.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Baroness Noakes Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 21st February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, this is a modest Bill to ensure that people in our country are given a level of protection against extreme strike action in important public services, and I strongly support it. There has been a lot of misrepresentation about the Bill, notably in the debates in the other place. The right honourable Angela Rayner was wrong to say that it is

“a vindictive assault on the basic freedoms of British working people”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/1/23; col. 66.]

The Bill does not extend the prohibition on strikes beyond the police and Armed Forces, but it is clearly the case that further prohibitions would be perfectly permissible. Prohibitions are much more extensive in other jurisdictions: public sector strikes are illegal in nearly four-fifths of states in the United States of America, and several EU states ban more strikes than we do. The Bill does not go there; it merely provides the means to set minimum service levels in just six categories of services that most people would regard as essential. There are many other services that people would regard as essential: my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley, who is not in her place, mentioned local authority services in her excellent maiden speech and there are others. The Bill does not go that far.

The Bill is about a balance of rights: there is the right to strike, within the legal framework set for strikes, but this is not an absolute right. As with many other rights that are protected in our society, it needs to be balanced against the rights of others—notably, those whose lives are impacted by strikes, even though they are not a direct party to whatever dispute has caused them. The International Labour Organization allows minimum service levels to be set for both essential services and the broader category of public services of fundamental importance. The ILO hence recognises the need to balance rights.

Citizens have a right to a minimum level of transport services so that they may travel to work or for other important purposes, such as health treatment. All school- children, especially the most vulnerable, have a right to education. We all have a right to a level of healthcare and emergency services, and that goes beyond the minimalist life-and-limb cover. These are the sorts of rights that have to be weighed in the balance. Strikers may well want to maximise the impact of their strike action, but that will inevitably have an adverse impact on the lives of ordinary citizens. Citizens pay taxes which fund public services, and their rights to those services must be taken into account.

I regret the need for an Act of Parliament to govern the balance of rights, but it is absolutely clear that we need the Bill. On train strike days, sometimes 20% of train services have been available, but they were generally in the wrong place and at the wrong time for many working people. Striking ambulance workers agreed to minimum service levels, but this was done via an arcane derogation process at local level and resulted in a postcode lottery for gravely sick people. Teachers were not obliged to notify their head teacher whether they would be at work and very many did not do so, which made it impossible to plan for a basic level of education to be provided to the children who needed it most. It is the actions of the unions and their members in the current strikes that have led directly to the need for the Bill, and the latest sabre-rattling from the junior doctors merely underlines that need.

I strongly support the Bill, but I am not uncritical of the way that the Government are seeking to get it through Parliament. Parliament should not be expected to pass laws without an understanding of the scale and scope of the impact that they will have. Some very bad habits in relation to impact assessments emerged during the Covid pandemic, largely in, though not limited to, the Department of Health and Social Care. We must not tolerate a cavalier approach to impact assessments for primary or secondary legislation. An impact assessment for the Bill was passed to the Regulatory Policy Committee earlier this month, but that was after the Bill had completed all its stages in the other place. It should have been available before the Second Reading there.

This morning, the Regulatory Policy Committee published its opinion. The impact assessment is red-rated as not fit for purpose and the cost-benefit analysis is weak. I have not been able to read the impact assessment because the hyperlink on GOV.UK was not working this morning. I have just one question for my noble friend the Minister on this: will the Government update their impact assessment to meet the criticisms of the Regulatory Policy Committee before the Bill goes into Committee?

Your Lordships’ House is at its best when it reflects what is important to the people of this country. A recent YouGov survey found that two-thirds of those expressing a view supported minimum service levels, with only one-third against. Let us approach scrutinising the Bill with that in mind.