Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Fuller Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I started using a computer before 1990. I was one of those children who started using the BBC Micro—one of the best things the BBC ever produced. Indeed, I learned how to code—admittedly only in BASIC, but sufficient in the days when the internet had not even been created—to start working out how to use data in the computer system.

Unlike the previous amendment, I cannot say to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, nor indeed to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, that I would support them if they were to call a Division on this amendment. I completely agree with proposed subsections 2A(a) and 5A(a) that

“the person’s actions were necessary for the detection or prevention of crime”

but not this latter bit that they have lumped into it, saying that

“the person’s actions were justified as being in the public interest”.

I am a great believer in the public interest, but I find that it is being used now to try to justify too many things, including not releasing information from government. In fact, it would be contrary to the public interest, for example, to release information on some of the Bills that we are debating, not just today but at other times during this Parliament.

Let us just try to get a sense of what is going on with the Computer Misuse Act. Why was it introduced? It was introduced to stop manipulation. At what point does manipulation using computers become justifiable in the public interest? For some, that might be a whistleblower caveat. From what the noble Lord set out, I am not quite sure why this is the defining element. I am conscious that the Government may want to automate even more, so what is the balance with what is there to prevent crimes and similar? I appreciate that we do not want bureaucracy and legislation to get in the way of generally trying to stop harm, but what is the impact of the other elements of the noble Lord’s amendments? They could actually deploy harm while still trying to justify it in the public interest.

I appreciate there is sometimes a resistance to old legislation, but old legislation is not necessarily stuck in its time. There are many other Acts that go back hundreds of years that are still perfectly valid because the principles are the same. I would be concerned if we walked into allowing this amendment to go through without testing the opinion of the House to try to assess precisely what actions the noble Lord is trying to allow by making a case for the defence that something be done in public interest. That is why I express my concerns tonight.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak against Amendment 367. I have the gravest concerns about it. I am not going to echo everything my noble friend Lady Coffey said, but it amounts to a hackers’ charter. I take security and IT security very seriously. I am responsible for IT security in my business. We are in a sensitive industry—we are involved in global trade—never more so than today, when ammonia and natural gas are under global pressure as part of a war. You have to take these things seriously.

When I joined your Lordships’ House two years ago, there was a briefing and I was pleased that I was one of a handful of Peers and MPs who had a password manager. Every password I have is at least 16 characters—they are random and not one is repeated. You have to take this stuff seriously—no pet names, not using your wife’s name or possibly a wedding anniversary. Using a VPN is important as well.

No matter what precautions you take, however, someone is always going to have a go. What this amendment does is give the malevolent hacker a free pass to get through: a ready defence. It is not just that. We need to recognise that technology is changing all the time. All the things I may do with passwords are not enough. Even using face, voice, biometrics and two-factor authentication, cloned SIM cards or using public wifi to intercept signals are important ways in which even the most diligent and careful person can have their data compromised. There are people who want to abuse your privacy or insult your business. We can simply create a crime, but we must take a huge number of steps to avoid jeopardy or giving them a “get out of jail free” card.

In my view, this amendment would mean that, if somebody finds something, they get off, but if they do not find anything then they are guilty. All those years ago when I was at school, we were taught about trial by ordeal. If you gripped a red hot iron bar and you got blisters, you were guilty; if a lady was put on the ducking stool and she drowned, she was probably innocent. This is the sort of perverse outcome that this amendment would provide.

Further, it denies how technology is changing in so far as AI is concerned. In our minds, we have a spotty teenager hacking away at their computer, perhaps late into the night while playing Fortnite on the other screen. What this amendment does is give an opportunity for AI, mechanisation, and the industrialisation and automation of structured hacks on a phishing expedition—a mass insult or mass trolling to try to scrape as much as they possibly can. The public interest is in the eye of the beholder, and because there is no pure definition that is challengeable, and so one would have to go to the law or ask international lawyers what amounts to a statement of the law, we are going to get in a muddle.

I cannot support Amendment 367, not just because I think it is naïve, in so far as it is thinking about the individual at home, but because it fails to understand the way that technology is changing so rapidly—the industrialisation, AI and so forth, and the volume attacks. We cannot give a perverse incentive that allows those people with malevolent intent to get off while individuals, business and the economy, at home and abroad, are under attack.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for bringing back this amendment on Report. As was our position in Committee, we recognise the need to update the Computer Misuse Act 1990 and bring it in line with the online reality in which we now live, 36 years after the Act.

I am grateful that, in Committee, the Minister acknowledged the need for the Government to examine the pro-innovation regulation of technologies review by the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, and come to their own conclusions. He was right then that it is entirely reasonable to expect cyber security to be updated with the growth in internet use and the corresponding growth in cyber attacks.

Little more needs to be said, other than that we support the intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I hope that the Minister will be able to update the House on the changes to the Act that the Home Office has considered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Jackson. I was delighted to move the amendment in Committee in his absence and to attract so much cross-party support. We also had the support of the police, of the esteemed former Met Commissioner, the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who I am glad to see in his place, and, as we have heard, from Dame Chi Onwurah, a very distinguished Labour MP.

As it is so late, I rise to say only that I agree entirely with my noble friend. The sight of distressed people in the Apple store, some from abroad, having to buy new phones and trying to get back into their accounts, affected me profoundly. It made me determined to change the incentive structure, both for criminals and indeed for retailers, which actually benefit from emergency sales of mobile phones. Given the degree of concern expressed across the Committee, at a much more civilised time, and the changes that my noble friend Lord Jackson has made to the amendment to try to meet any concerns, I very much look forward to a positive response from the Minister and to getting after this ghastly criminal operation.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 368 in support of my noble friend Lord Jackson, because losing your phone is not just inconvenient. When your device is stolen, a crime has been committed, and operators have a responsibility to take a much more leading role in disincentivising the opportunities to steal, to make it a lot easier to reunite people with a phone that might have been lost and to discourage the black market in stolen goods.

It is a late hour, but I hope to tell a little uplifting story about my experiences today, because today I found a phone on the Tube as I got off at Westminster. It turns out that the gentleman sitting next to me, who had got off at Victoria on the way from Fulham, had left it behind. I am an honest chap. I had a look: it was a pink case with two phone numbers inside. I called them and there was no answer, but I texted them and, by and by, there was a response. To cut a long story short, the phone was reunited with the owner—perhaps, as I have the phone number now, I might send them the YouTube clip and possibly the Hansard as well. The phone was deposited at Westminster Tube with TfL staff, who were really good. They were actually really interested and keen to help this poor, unfortunate chap.

But what if someone had not been quite so honest? What if that phone number was not tucked inside the pink case? How would it have been secured and returned? I did not expect to talk to this group, but my experience today shows how important this amendment is. The man in the street should not rely just on the kindness of strangers. The phone companies should not make it harder to reunite; we should prevent the perverse incentives.

But there is another point. The phone is no longer just a phone. It is not just a device to doomscroll on late at night. It is not just a device to play “Candy Crush”. The phone is now a token—part of our security infrastructure and part of the devices that secure our economy. I do not believe that this has been fully understood. I got locked out of my parliamentary account the other day, and because I had left my phone behind, I could not do my work, neither my commercial work nor the work associated with this House. I do not think that the penny has quite dropped with the operators to recognise that they are now part of the security infrastructure of our economy. It is not just the inconvenience of losing a phone and queuing up, as my noble friend says, in the Apple store to replace it; this is part of the technological infrastructure of our nation. Technology has moved on, and the phone companies must do so too.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Fuller Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 7th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, identity theft, as my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond said, is no longer a niche crime; it is the dominant fraud type in the UK and getting worse. In 2024, over 421,000 fraud cases were filed to the national fraud database and almost 250,000 were identity fraud filings, making identity theft the single largest category recorded by industry partners. CIFAS, the credit industry fraud avoidance system, recorded a record number of cases on the national fraud database in 2024. The organisations themselves prevented more than £2.1 billion of attempted loss, yet criminals are shifting tactics. Account takeovers rose by 76% and unauthorised SIM swaps surged, driven by the rapid adoption of AI and generative tools that let fraudsters create convincing fake documents and synthetic identities at scale.

We have all read of some of the high-profile examples: celebrity impersonation via deepfakes and cloned voices has been widely reported; manipulated videos and voice clones purporting to show public figures from Elon Musk to Martin Lewis, Holly Willoughby and others, have been used to generate investment scams and phishing campaigns. Documented victim losses include large individual losses linked to celebrity impersonation scams. One NatWest customer is reported to have lost £150,000 after responding to a scam impersonating Martin Lewis.

However, I think we are all more concerned with the tens of thousands of ordinary people who are not celebrities and who lose all their savings to these crooks. They are the victims who suffer real financial loss and damage, with long and costly recovery processes, while businesses face rising prevention costs and operational strain. I therefore strongly support the concept of the draft clause and the need for it. While it is well intentioned, I fear that it has some technical difficulties. It is a bit broad and vague about what “obtains” and “impersonate” mean. It also risks overlap with the Fraud Act, the Computer Misuse Act and the Data Protection Act, and lacks some clear defences for legitimate security research and lawful investigations. It also needs to address AI and the deepfake-specific methods, and set out what we can do about extraterritorial reach, for example, or aggravating factors for organised, large-scale operations.

We all know that my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond is, as we have just heard, an absolute expert on AI; he recently addressed a top-level group of the Council of Europe on this subject. May I suggest that he and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, get together with the Home Office or other government digital experts and bring back on Report a more tightly drafted amendment? Among other things, it should tighten the definitions of “obtain”, “impersonate” and “sensitive”; ensure that the mens rea is tied to dishonesty or intent to cause loss or gain; include recklessness in enabling others; limit the scope to unlawfully obtained data or use that bypasses authentication; and explicitly include AI/deepfake methods when used to bypass checks or cause reliance. It should also have clear defences for lawful authority and make sure that duplication is avoided, whether it be with the Fraud Act, the Computer Misuse Act or the Data Protection Act. Finally—I know this is an impossible ask, and that Governments find it almost impossible to do—something should be done about extraterritorial reach, because that is terribly important.

I say to the Minister: there is a gap in the legislation here. We should plug it, and we may have time to bring back on Report a more tightly drawn amendment that would deal with all the concerns of noble Lords and the possible problems I have just raised.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support strongly the comments of my noble friend Lord Blencathra and the principle of the amendment laid by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. This is a timely amendment, possibly timelier than the noble Lord anticipated, because today the Government have announced the promotion of a Minister to promulgate digital IDs among the population.

Digital IDs are going to have a huge vista and connection, not just in linking to personal data but in other areas of life: in the relationship between the state and the individual; and in the payment of parking tickets, road tolls, stamp duty and fishing licences—a different sort of fishing, as it begins with an “f”, not a “p”. So I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on the thrust of the amendment, although I accept that some polishing is required.

If the Government are to promote digital IDs, the population at large need to have confidence not just that they will be correctly introduced but that there are safeguards against such impersonation. I strongly support the principle of this amendment and say to the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, that if the Government resist it in principle, what confidence can the man in the street have that the Government are sincere about the safeguards they intend to introduce, alongside their intention for digital IDs—to get that balance right between the state and the individual, coupled together against the criminal?

We need to bring this back on Report. I hope the Minister is prepared to meet the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and others to address this principle, so that the Government get off on the right foot, if they intend to promote digital IDs, and not resist this, because there is a world of pain if they do.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for tabling this amendment. I know that the creation of a specific identity offence has been a long-standing concern of his, so I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I tentatively support the principle behind his amendment, although this issue is deserving of more scrutiny and thought than we are perhaps able to give it as an amendment in Committee.

I recognise the impetus for this amendment. Identity theft has long been the primary means by which criminals commit fraud; and, with a booming online world exacerbated by the introduction of artificial intelligence, digital identity theft is fast becoming a serious issue. CIFAS, the leading non-profit fraud prevention service, has documented the rise in identity theft. Last year, as we have heard from my noble friend Lord Blencathra, over 420,000 fraud cases were filed to the national fraud database, a 13% increase on the previous year. The main driver of this increase was identity fraud, with 250,000 filings, representing a 5% annual increase.

CIFAS cites online fraud as a primary cause of this increase; AI and generative technologies enable criminals to exploit people at speed and scale. Documents and identity cards are being forged at a more sophisticated level than before, with many now able to pass verification checks. Targets are often the elderly, as criminals target the least technologically capable and therefore most vulnerable victims.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Fuller Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 21st July 2025 Lords Chamber

I strongly support this set of amendments because they make it clear to all the parties concerned what the threshold will be. They will encourage trade unions to meet that threshold in the workplace and not to put their recognition bids through the backdoor of a statutory instrument. They should play fair with the workers, the employers and the country about the 10% threshold.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to all the amendments in this group. I approach it from the perspective that democracy is always about cherishing minority views and making reasonable allowances, with the proviso that the minority do not hold the majority over the barrel. If you allow the minority a veto or special qualification to enforce their narrow view of the world, it encourages extreme views and intransigence. If you give somebody a veto, do not be surprised if they use it. The effect of the Bill is perhaps to give minorities significantly lower than the 10% threshold a perverse incentive to exercise that veto. That is not good for the individual or the employer, and I believe that it is not even good for the unions, because it potentially weakens their members’ mandate.

I speak from the perspective of somebody who has negotiated the local government pay deal for many years as part of the national joint committee, alongside the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. My experience is coloured by the knowledge that in local government there are three different unions involved—UNISON, Unite and GMB—and it is a complicated negotiating environment. It is hard enough to get consensus with three unions in the mix, still less with 10—but that is where the Bill is taking us.

If we do not accept these amendments, it will place the employers in the invidious position of choosing between various unions. The lower the threshold, the greater the incentive to fragment the union landscape—the Judean People’s Front phenomenon—and, in so doing, weaken the benefits of sensible recognition and union power. I cannot understand why the brothers are so keen to reduce the 10% threshold. Why should the employer be placed in an impossible position to arbitrate between warring unions, jostling for position and preference by allowing each to assert rights that they should be agreeing among themselves?

These amendments will not weaken the thrust of what the Government are trying to achieve, but they would provide the certainty of a materiality threshold that would otherwise allow the unintended consequences of negotiation chaos—too many cooks being allowed to spoil the broth. That would disadvantage the employee by reducing the negotiating power of the majority; disadvantage the employer by making it hard to negotiate with unions with sufficient critical mass; and, for the union movement, value fragmentation and the pursuance of special interests over building consensus.

Once more, we have an opportunity to ask the Government to support sensible and measured amendments that will help them achieve their purpose. To resist would risk delivering the opposite, and not for the first time.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, in Committee we tabled several amendments resisting this reduction from 10%, and the reason for doing that was that we think that is the existing and fair threshold. To go to 2% is not being done for the reason that the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, says, which is about competing unions and getting the one with the lowest threshold, but for a different reason.

When we have had these arguments, in Committee and tonight, the fall-back position of the Ministers and other speakers is, “Well, they don’t have to join a union—they don’t have to be in a union”. I was in the GMB—I do wish people would not list Unite and the other one, and put the GMB third; please put the GMB a bit further up the pecking order next time. But the point of the story that I am trying to tell noble Lords is that although the Minister says that you do not have to join a union, by reducing this to 2% from 10% you are effectively stacking the deck. You are setting them up there. If you believe that trade unions are free to join or not, and there is a threshold and it is 10%, that is your principle, and that has stood for years. Why, then, in employment law do you need to move that down to 2%? What brings you to that number? There is an obvious reason for that number, is there not?

On the unintended consequences again—it becomes a mantra, but I will say it very quickly—in small and medium-sized businesses employing 10, 15 or 20 people, they need only two, three or four people to say, “We want to join a union” for it to become complicated, with HR and all the other unintended consequences. So 10% is a reasonable threshold. The Government have given us no reason why they want to change it from 10% to 2%. They should leave it at 10%; leave the status quo. If the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, decides to press his amendment tonight, my depleted troops will be supporting him in the Lobby.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Fuller Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 16th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I am a great fan of international competitiveness and growth objectives for regulators. When the first one was introduced for financial services regulators in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, I thought it was an incredibly important addition to the way regulation of financial services is undertaken. Just last week, your Lordships’ Financial Services Regulation Committee issued its report on how that international competitiveness and growth objective is working, and I commend it to noble Lords.

I support what my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom has said about applying the duty to the Certification Officer, but I invite him to consider whether there is a much more important area where such a duty should be applied in this Bill, which is to when the Secretary of State makes decisions about, for example, the enforcement provisions or making the various regulations that we know are necessary to make Part 1, and indeed other parts of the Bill, operate effectively.

The most important aspect of the Bill is going to be driven by what the Secretary of State does once it is enacted, but there is not an equivalent requirement on the Secretary of State to take into account the needs of international competitiveness and growth. It is essential for the Secretary of State to have that at the front of his mind when making regulations that will have such a big impact on the way that businesses operate in this country. I therefore commend my noble friend’s amendment, but if he is considering bringing something back on Report, he might consider something a little broader.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, this nation must earn its place in the world, and, regrettably, we are losing to some of our industrial competitors, particularly in energy-intensive industries such as steel, aluminium and so on. We must live by our wits, and that means increasingly leaning on highly skilled, knowledge-based employment in an economy that values strong intellectual property rights, the rule of contract and property rights themselves. That requires an economy with flexibility and agility.

Earlier today, along with other noble Lords, I sat on the Home-based Working Committee. We are seeing firsthand how the world of work is changing, not just in the way that we go to work but in the way that we sometimes work from home. The entire technological underpinning of our economy is changing too. We have not yet seen the end of artificial intelligence and what it might do to low-skilled, somewhat transactional arrangements.

It does not help the economy, and by extension those who work in it, if all participating employers and unions do not recognise that we have a duty to move with the times. We cannot put a wall around our economy and create some high-cost walled garden as the rest of the world trades its way to prosperity, leaving us behind. I strongly support Amendment 256 and want to give more power to the officer who, more than anyone, can cajole and encourage workers’ representatives to recognise the world as it is, rather than the world as they might wish it to be.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for tabling Amendment 256. We fully recognise the importance of supporting growth and international competitiveness across our economy, and we will of course continue to pursue policies that will deliver on our economic ambition. However, we do not consider this duty to be appropriate for the certification officer.

The certification officer is not a traditional regulator; they are an independent quasi-judicial officeholder. Their core functions are to oversee regulatory compliance fairly and impartially and to ensure trade unions and employers’ associations adhere to statutory requirements in relation to their finances and governance. This includes investigating complaints, maintaining accurate registers and ensuring that democratic processes are upheld. Imposing a duty to promote growth and competitiveness would cut across this role. It risks introducing competing priorities, blurring legal clarity and ultimately undermining confidence in the CO’s neutrality. We cannot require the certification officer both to conduct their judicial and regulatory functions and to deliver economic outcomes. The certification officer has no role in relation to the international competitiveness of the United Kingdom economy or its growth in the medium to long term.

As noble Lords will know, this Government have been active in requiring a number of regulators to apply a growth duty. Those bodies to which the growth duty currently applies are purely regulators—regulators that set strategies and make decisions that significantly affect the type, scale and location of economic activity in important sectors. The decisions regulators take can set the parameters for economic activity across the economy, and, of course, we recognise that; but the certification officer does not have this responsibility or power. We share the noble Lord’s commitment to economic growth, but it must be pursued in the right way. Furthermore, requiring the certification officer to follow a growth duty would not be practicable, and there is no evidence that imposing such a duty would have any meaningful impact on the UK’s growth or international competitiveness. It would be like asking a court to consider cases based on their impact on economic growth rather than on the evidence of the case.

For those reasons, I must ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, to withdraw Amendment 256.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

The noble Baroness will need to because it is an amendment, and therefore at the end one has to ask for it to be either considered or, by leave, withdrawn.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I support this amendment, but not for the reasons my noble friend gave. Many years ago—Members on the Government Benches may realise quite how long ago this is when I give the names of the unions concerned, which are long since consigned to history—I was the director of a small haulage firm. It no longer exists or trades, but I cut my teeth on labour relations behind the wheel.

In our small business, which employed about 50 people, there were three types of worker: those who were not in a union at all, a small number who were with the TGWU—that dates me—and those with a new union, the United Road Transport Union. The shop steward of the URTU came to see me and said: “It’s like this, John. I think that you should recognise our union”. So I did. It was personally convenient to deal with one person rather than try to have a mass meeting with 30 or 40 people, all with different views. Unlike what some noble Lords might think of those on the Conservative Benches, I found a huge amount of value in being able to negotiate with the URTU, which had the most members but was not entirely pervasive in our company. Arthur Harris was in the TGWU—he was such a long-standing member of our business that he was employee no. 1 on our payroll system—and was not about to go to the URTU for a moment.

The point of this story is that I negotiated in good faith with the URTU and recognised that it had the most members. When making an agreement, we were somewhat apart but not completely, and I said: “Peter, put this offer to them and let’s see what they say”. He did not really want to, but the point is that I needed to make the offer as well to the other union, the TGWU, and to those members who were not in a union at all.

My noble friend made the point about the Port of Felixstowe and I inferred from her remarks that there was a single union to deal with, but that is not the landscape for many organisations. Later this evening I will talk about my experiences in local government, where there are three different unions involved—UNISON, Unite and the GMB—and a complicated negotiating environment.

I support this amendment because it provides equality to the smaller unions, not just the big ones, some of which have their own agendas. It is incumbent on all unionised labour to at least see what is on the table, whether or not their union negotiated it. That is why my noble friend’s Amendment 257A is very important and should be given proper consideration; it recognises the complex labour landscape found in many companies, particularly in private business, not just the monolithic larger organisations where there are single unions, facility time and other things.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend’s amendment, which, as she explained, addresses a fundamental democratic deficit in our current industrial relations framework. I thank my noble friend Lord Fuller for giving his personal experience of how important this deficit can be if it is not addressed.

This amendment would require trade unions to present any employer offer to their membership for a vote, regardless of whether the union leadership supports it. My noble friend gave the example of Felixstowe; others could give similar examples, such as what has been happening with the Birmingham strike. This is not an anti-union measure—it is a pro-democracy measure that seeks to strengthen the voice of individual workers within the collective bargaining process. It recognises that in a democratic society it should be workers themselves, not union officials, who decide whether an employer’s offer meets their needs and aspirations.

The principle underlying this amendment is simple and would be seen as uncontroversial in any other democratic context: those affected by a decision should have the right to make that decision for themselves. When union leaders can simply reject employer offers without consulting their membership, they effectively deny workers the fundamental right to democratic participation in decisions that fundamentally affect their livelihoods. We would surely not accept a system where parliamentary leaders could reject government proposals without allowing MPs to vote. We would not tolerate local councils where executives could dismiss motions without having to present them to councillors. The same should surely apply to trade unions.

This amendment recognises that the priorities, circumstances and risk tolerances of individual workers may differ from those of their union leadership. A young worker saving for a house deposit may take a very different view of sustained strike action from that of an established worker nearing retirement. A worker in precarious financial circumstances may prefer settlement on reasonable but suboptimal terms to prolonged uncertainty and loss of income. Surely we all want to avoid a situation where workers are denied a voice in decisions that so profoundly affect their lives.

Contrary to weakening collective bargaining, this amendment would strengthen it by increasing member engagement and ensuring that union positions truly reflect membership priorities. When workers know that they will have the final say on offers, they are more likely to engage with the bargaining process and provide clear guidance about their priorities. Enhanced member involvement can improve union negotiating positions by ensuring that they are based on genuine membership preferences rather than leadership assumptions. It can also increase employer confidence in the bargaining process by ensuring that negotiated agreements will not be undermined by membership rejection.

Although many trade unions always act in good faith when considering employer offers, this amendment would put protections into legislation to prevent bad actors denying workers their democratic voice. Without legislative safeguards, the system could enable a dangerous information asymmetry where union officials control what information reaches members and the manner in which that information is presented.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 262 concerns an issue of considerable importance, not merely for those involved directly in industrial relations but for the health of our broader economy, the stability of our public services and the legitimacy of this legislation. The amendment would require the Government to commission and publish, within 12 months of Royal Assent, an independent assessment of the impact of this Act on the number of working days lost to strike action, specifically comparing the 12 months following its enactment with the 12 months preceding it. That report would then have to be laid before Parliament. This amendment is modest in scope. It does not seek to obstruct the Bill or alter its provisions. It merely seeks transparency, accountability and, above all, vital evidence-based analysis in due course.

There is a striking—if I may use that word without inflaming the debate—absence of hard data or persuasive analysis in support of the central justification for these changes, namely that repealing certain elements of the Trade Union Act 2016 will result in better industrial relations. Indeed, the Government’s own impact assessment acknowledges that there could be a benefit

“if Trade Union reforms lead to better industrial relations”.

I emphasise “if”. Hope is not a good substitute for policy. Nor should legislation of this consequence be built on assumptions rather than analysis. I will therefore structure my remarks around three core questions which the Government have failed to answer convincingly and which this amendment would help to address.

If we are to repeal elements of the 2016 Act, we must first understand what standard the Government are using to declare that Act a failure, or at the very least to assert that it is no longer fit for purpose. The Trade Union Act 2016 introduced significant changes: minimum turnout thresholds for strike ballots; requirements for information on ballot papers; limits on picketing; and restrictions on facility time in the public sector. It was controversial, certainly, but it was also justified by the Government of the time as necessary to ensure that industrial action had a strong democratic legitimacy, and that the wider public were protected from excessive disruption.

Now we are told that these measures must be rolled back, but we have at no stage been told what objective, or even subjective, measure of success or failure is being applied. Are we to believe that the 2016 Act failed because it did not eliminate all industrial action, because it was unpopular with some stakeholders or because it placed an administrative burden on unions—or, more worryingly, is it being repealed simply as a matter of political preference? To look at some figures, according to the Office for National Statistics, the number of working days lost to strike action was at a historic low throughout the period following the 2016 Act until a sharp rise in 2022-23, partly driven by inflation, the consequential erosion of real-terms pay and broader discontent in the traditional public sector.

Are we being told the legislation was ineffective because strikes still happened in 2022? If so, that ignores the very different macroeconomic context we now face. Or is the claim simply that industrial relations will somehow improve if these legal constraints are lifted? In any of those cases we must ask: compared with what? Compared with the pre-2016 environment? Compared with our European neighbours? Or compared with a model of workplace consensus that may not exist in reality? Without a baseline for comparison, the Government’s argument is essentially unfalsifiable and unjustifiable.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that the Government believe that these changes will lead to more equitable bargaining, greater union engagement and ultimately improved relations between employers and workers. Even if that were true, we must still ask at what cost. If these reforms lead to a rise in industrial action, that will have implications not only for the affected sectors but for the public at large. Trains will be cancelled, schools will be closed, hospital appointments will be postponed, bin collections will be missed and courts will be adjourned. These are not abstract costs, so it is extraordinary to repeal a major piece of industrial relations legislation without offering any quantification of the risks of increased disruption and without explaining how those risks will be mitigated.

The impact assessment leans heavily on the idea that increased union involvement could lead to improved communication and better outcomes, and perhaps it could. But the fact remains that the cost of getting this wrong will be borne not by policymakers but by the public. That is why this amendment is so crucial. It simply asks the Government to return to Parliament within a year and tell us whether this has worked. Has industrial action decreased or increased? Are we seeing the promised harmony or the feared escalation? If it is the latter, we as legislators have a responsibility to know that and to act accordingly.

Perhaps the most fundamental question of all is: what actual, empirical, verifiable evidence do the Government have to support their central claim? We have not been given a retrospective analysis of the Trade Union Act 2016 and its impact. We have not been provided with consultation data that robustly supports repeal. We have not seen sector-by-sector breakdowns of how these measures will improve the industrial landscape. We have not even seen clear articulation of the problem the Bill is trying to solve. Indeed, the rationale appears to be more ideological than evidential. It seems to be based on the belief that loosening legal constraints will somehow foster good will and reduce conflict. All the academic research and literature on industrial relations remind us that legal frameworks matter, that institutions shape behaviour, and that rules, when clear, consistent and fairly applied, help prevent conflict and not exacerbate it.

If the Government are so confident in their position, why not test it? Why not commit to measuring its effect? Why not, a year on, lay before this House and the other place an honest assessment of whether their theory of change has delivered the desired result? If the evidence proves them right, they will be vindicated. If not, Parliament should be empowered to revisit the legislation. There is, after all, considerable flexibility inherent in legislation so riddled with Henry VIII powers. I look forward to the Minister’s reply and I beg to move.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 262 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and others, because I want to talk about a simple economic truth. One of the provisions in the Bill will reduce the thresholds at which industrial action may be called or authorised. The truth is that when you reduce the threshold, the likelihood of industrial action does not grow linearly; it grows exponentially. The amendment is needed because the Bill, sadly, will provide the world with a real-life experiment that will inform political and economic science of that simple truth.

It could be worse than that. My experience comes from local government and my relationship with the National Joint Council. Local government employs 1.8 million local government workers. There are three principal unions: Unite, UNISON and GMB. Within the cohort of local government workers, I have negotiated with the craft workers, the Salisbury workers and the coroners. There is a red book, a green book and a blue book; there is even a gold book covering senior fire officers and police officers. There are 136 different activities that local authorities do and, of course, there are 350 principal councils. I have engaged with all this complexity over about 10 years sitting on the National Joint Council, the device through which the employers engage with the unions. I have sat alongside the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, on that body for many years, and now we both find ourselves in here.

As part of the gang of four, the top four local government councillors engaged in these important negotiations, I have learned a lot of things. There is less beer, there are fewer sandwiches and there are palatial premises built by one of the unions in Euston. It has not been easy work, but we have had a series of national agreements engaging on a respectful basis. It has been valuable work. The important point is that there have been powerful incentives to avoid industrial action. The bar has not been impossible, but it has been a high bar against which strike action must be called. It has sort of worked, because there has been an equilibrium between the employer and the employees across 1.8 million unionised workers —just under a third of them all—in this country.

That equilibrium has meant that when there is a strike, it is serious. When people down tools, it is in the news. The Birmingham bin strike is a case in point: there is a strike, and it is serious. My anxiety about so many of the provisions in the Bill is that it is going to dissolve the powerful incentives to avoid industrial action and instead, arithmetically and structurally, put in the provisions where it is encouraged. The Bill sets the wrong balance, because we are not talking about simple organisations with single unions and small workforces in local government. We are talking about a very complex landscape. If you reduce the thresholds, people are more likely to strike because a minority, as little as 10%, of workers could call a strike. When 10% hold the 90% over a barrel, that is clearly not in the interests of the public; it is not in the interests of the workers; and I do not believe that in the long term it is in the interests of the unions.

Amendment 262 calls for a robust assessment of the effect of the Bill on days lost to industrial action. Not only is that the right thing to do but we would do a service, because it would demonstrate once and for all that simple efficiency of labour relations: if you reduce the threshold to call industrial action, the number of days lost to strikes will go up geometrically. I regret that we are going to do a service to political and economic science, but if that is the way it is, Amendment 262 is the way to achieve it.