Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Lord Hendy Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Thursday 20th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

My Lords, the House will be pleased to know that I can again be brief, as we have debated this Bill and the remaining issue at length on a number of occasions. The other place has again considered the Bill, as requested by this House. The House will be unsurprised to hear that it has come to the same conclusion as previously, again with a significant majority. This is now the third time that the other place has made its will clear, and I therefore hope that noble Lords will take that into account today.

Noble Lords last sent the Bill back to the other place with the justification that the International Labour Organization had issued new information. As my colleague, the Minister for Enterprise, Markets and Small Business, noted in the debate there earlier this week, this is ground which has already been well covered by both Houses. I therefore hope that knowing that the other place has considered the issue again, and voted with that in mind, will give noble Lords the confidence that this issue has now been extensively scrutinised.

The Minister in the other place also explained that the Government will provide clarity in respect of the reasonable steps which a union must take to be compliant with the legislation. I know that this has been a concern for the noble Lord, Lord Collins, in our previous debates. I am therefore pleased to confirm that the Government will bring forward a statutory code of practice on the reasonable steps which a union must take. We will do that using existing powers under Section 203 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. That code will be subject to statutory consultation, including with ACAS, and will of course need to be approved by both Houses of Parliament. This consultation will provide an opportunity for trade unions, employers and any other interested parties to contribute to providing practical guidance on the steps that a union must take to make the code as practicable, durable and effective as possible.

I hope these steps go some way to reassuring the House that the Government’s plans for minimum service levels are within our international obligations and that we will provide clarity where that is required. I hope therefore that this House will now feel able to allow this legislation to pass to Royal Assent. I beg to move.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, in form, this skeleton legislation with its Henry VIII powers defies every legislative principle, as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Select Committee on the Constitution have reported. As to content, the less said the better. Although the Government’s impact assessment was held by the Regulatory Policy Committee to be not fit for purpose, it contains the revealing analysis that, far from obviating the disruption that strikes inevitably cause, the Bill

“could mean a general increase in tension between unions and employers. This may result in more adverse impacts in the long term, such as an increased frequency of strikes for each dispute”.

No doubt that is part of the reason why employers, as well as trade unions, have opposed the Bill.

This House tried to redeem the Bill with amendments to protect workers from unfair dismissal and unions from damages and injunctions, as required by international law, but the Government’s majority in the other place rejected them. This House, in its latest modest amendment, sought to mitigate the Bill’s excesses by requiring consultation before regulations were made, but even this was rejected by the other place on Monday.

The fact is that the Bill abridges the right to strike, a right established by many international treaties to which the UK adheres. A letter written by the general secretary of the European Trade Union Confederation to the Secretary of State the day before yesterday sums it up. She said:

“It is clear that the Bill introduces provisions which weaken or reduce existing law in relation to the protection of the fundamental right to strike and which do not respect or implement ILO Convention 87”.


The Joint Committee on Human Rights said the same thing. The letter points out the specific respects in which the Bill fails to meet ILO conditions for permissible MSL legislation. Among its list of non-compliances, the letter points to the absence in the Bill of: any requirement for trade union and employer dialogue in the setting of MSLs; any obligation on the employer to negotiate an agreement with the trade union about service levels; and any independent adjudication mechanism in the event of a failure to agree.

Your Lordships’ amendment would have gone a long way to rectify these non-compliances without such remedial action. As ETUC points out, the UK will not only be in breach of ILO Convention 87 and paragraph 4 of Article 6 of the European Social Charter, but it will also violate Articles 387 and 399 of the trade and co-operation agreement. However, the Government have a problem with consultation with the social partners. Just a week ago, the High Court held that the purpose of the statutory obligation to consult before making regulations under the Employment Agencies Act was that:

“Parliament can then proceed on the basis that the case for the measure has been tested with interested parties in the sector and that their views and interests have been taken into consideration in fashioning the draft regulations which are laid before it”.


The Government’s failure to consult was, the court held,

“so unfair as to be unlawful and, indeed, irrational”.

Less than a month ago, the relevant ILO committee told

“the Government to provide information to and facilitate the dialogue between and with the social partners with a view to … improve consultation of the social partners on legislation of relevance to them”.

Of course I accept that the undertaking by the noble Lord to introduce a code of practice imports a duty to consult, but such consultation is apparently limited solely to the issue of reasonable steps. It does not require the social dialogue that compliance with international law does. In truth, as was said by Mick Whitley MP in the other place,

“no number of amendments could ever salvage this Bill”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/7/23; col. 721.]

That is why the Labour Party is committed to repealing it.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comments. I appreciate his ability to be brief, but sadly I do not think I will be able to be as brief as him on this occasion because there are, as my noble friend Lord Hendy has just raised, a number of issues outstanding.

This House acknowledged, I think from all sides, that this is a skeletal Bill. It is an example of legislating and then determining policy and procedure. It is really the wrong way around. There is not a proper process of consultation, as my noble friend has just outlined. I repeat the intention of a future Labour Government to repeal the Act because it does not have the support of workers’ representatives or employers. It is impracticable and will simply result in not achieving the objectives of the Bill the Government set out, while worsening the situation in industrial relations. Even the Government’s own impact assessments have said it could possibly increase strikes.

The position on the Bill has been one, in this House, of principled objections to the methodology used and the practical application. I stress the importance, when Parliament is starved of the ability to properly scrutinise legislation that impacts on fundamental human rights, as in this case, of the fact that we have a duty in this House to keep reminding Parliament of that situation. My noble friend highlighted that the International Labour Organization’s Conference Committee on the Application of Standards called on the Government to ensure that existing and prospective legislation conforms to the article he mentioned. The Minister has said in the past, “That’s all right because we will ensure that this legislation will conform”. I am not sure, and I do not think employers or union representatives have any confidence, that that will be the case.

What this House asked the Commons to consider was precisely what the ILO is asking the Government to do anyway: to undertake genuine consultation before implementing minimum service regulations. That means that, when regulations are published, they include an impact assessment and there should be genuine consultation, including on the protection for workers named in work notices and the reasonable steps that trade unions need to take to ensure compliance. The consultation on the selected sectors has taken place, which we have not seen the results of. We will not see those results before the Bill is enacted. Again, that is outrageous in my opinion.

On the reasonable steps the noble Lord has referred to, we have, rather late in the day, heard a Minister saying that a new code of practice will be brought forward. This is certainly an improvement on the Government’s previous position that it was for courts to decide what reasonable steps are—so unions would not even know until challenged in the courts what they may be required to do. However, we are told that the code will be subject, using existing powers, to statutory consultation, including consultation with ACAS, and the approval of Parliament. The Minister in the other place said:

“The consultation will give trade unions, employers and any other interested parties an opportunity to contribute to practical guidance on the steps that a union must take”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/7/23; col. 713.]


What is the timetable for this? I take that Minister’s words as not simply meaning the obligation to consult ACAS without a timeframe. I hope that we will not see a rushed consultation over the August holiday period. If that is the plan, it will make a mockery of that process and people will fully understand the true intent of this Government.

I seek assurance from the Government that there will be a proper timetable. I remind the noble Lord the Minister that, on 23 January the Government announced strong action against unscrupulous employers which use the controversial practice of fire and rehire through a planned statutory code of practice. That announcement followed ACAS guidance to employers a year before. The consultation announced on 23 January ran for a period of 12 weeks, with views sought from not only interested groups but from the public. Parliament has the right to be satisfied that union workers and the public will be given the same consultation rights and period for the statutory code under the Bill as given for the fire and rehire one. We are entitled to know today that this is what the Government will do.

As my noble friend highlighted, last week the High Court said, in relation to the consultation process for the regulations that allowed agency workers to break strikes, that

“this is not a case in which the evidence is that the proposal had obvious and undisputed merit based on cogent evidence, and enjoyed strong support from representative bodies in the sector”.

It could have been talking about the Bill—and no doubt in time it will be. I hope the Minister fully understands the position of these Benches. I hope he also fully understands that the concern I have expressed, and my noble friends have expressed, is not just restricted to this side. All sides of the House fully understand the importance of protecting fundamental freedoms and Parliament having the proper opportunity to scrutinise legislation, which we have not had in the case of the Bill. I will not repeat all the objections made by the committees my noble friend referred to; they are on the record. But I hope the Minister, in his response, will be able to give us a full explanation of what he intends to do in terms of the consultation on the code of practice.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Lord Hendy Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 15th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I am sorry, my Lords, but it was clearly expressed, and it was expressed again in 2019. A mandate was given to the Executive to remove EU laws; it was not given to this Chamber to hold it up.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, I doubt very much whether the will of the people was to remove the rights of working people. I doubt very much whether those who voted for Brexit voted to remove the rights and entitlements that they had inherited from EU law.

I too support the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. Last Wednesday, 10 May, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, referred a moment ago, was a busy day for the Government. On that day, in the other place, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade made a Written Statement about this Bill, pointing out that amendments would be tabled to it. At the end of the Statement, she said:

“As part of this drive for deregulation, today I can announce that we will make improvements to employment law which could help save businesses around £1 billion a year, while safeguarding the rights of workers”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/5/23; col. 16WS.]


And she gave some indication of what those changes might be.

On that same day, the Department for Business and Trade also published a booklet called Smarter Regulation to Grow the Economy. From the last couple of pages of that we learn what is in the Government’s mind: first, the requirement under the working time regulations to keep records of hours worked is to be removed. How businesses and their workers will be able to ensure compliance with the remainder of the regulations was not explained. Secondly, eight days of UK holiday are to be added to the 20 days of EU holiday for workers; but, it appears, this may result in economic loss, as the days allowed by the EU are paid on a different, higher basis than the UK days. Thirdly, rolled up-holiday pay—a technicality of employment law—is to be permitted, but the effect is to remove what was introduced as a protection for workers. Fourthly, the obligation to consult over redundancies is to be removed for small businesses.

Those changes are not very great, although they may be significant for some. In the vast number of amendments to this Bill that have been tabled—in particular, the 600 pieces of EU-derived legislation identified by the Government for removal or partial removal—I have looked at where those weakened employment rights are to be found. They are not there. The reason they are not there is that they will be introduced by statutory instrument after the Bill has become law.

We in Parliament need the chance to scrutinise what will otherwise be a constant stream of statutory instruments removing and weakening workers’ employment rights and health and safety at work rights. That is why I support the important amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Lord Hendy Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 26th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, it would be churlish not to acknowledge that we appreciate what this amendment will do.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, noble Lords have broadly welcomed this and clearly want to move on to another section, so I do not think I have any points to raise in response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly to both these amendments, which have my name. There might be an argument that the ends justify the means, but this does not deliver the ends. This false promise does not work. The means we are discussing here will poison industrial relations. The means we are discussing here will make recruitment into public services much harder, because working conditions will be made worse. The means we are talking about here will also remove predictability when we have a workplace dispute, because, as has been noted, people will go off sick and refuse to do overtime, and that will make the job of managing through a strike much harder.

The last group talked about protecting employers from this unwanted Bill. This group talks about protecting workers and unions from this unwanted Bill, and I ask your Lordships to support both these amendments.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendments 4 and 5. I will be brief and speak only about Amendment 5. The purpose of the proposed new Section 234E is objectionable, for all the reasons my noble friend Lord Collins has spelled out: the ethical objection to requiring a union to undermine its own otherwise lawful strike. There is a more fundamental point here; this is an elephant trap. The purpose of this provision is to enable employers to get injunctions to prevent unions conducting a strike that has been balloted.

I am reminded that, 44 years ago, I stood at the Bar of this House as junior counsel in a case called Express Newspapers Ltd v McShane and Ashton. Since then, I must have done dozens of strike cases. I know what my learned friends will say, representing employers in the sort of case where this issue arises; they will say that the union has failed to take reasonable steps. The union will produce a witness statement setting out all the steps it has taken, and the employers will say, “Ah, but there’s one step you didn’t take”, and they will say what it was.

This Bill does not say what the reasonable steps are or what factors are to be taken into consideration. That is in contrast, for example, to Section 238A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; in dealing with dismissals during a strike, it set outs the words “reasonable steps” and says expressly what factors a court is to take into account in determining whether reasonable steps have been taken or not.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Lord Hendy Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

Indeed. The point is that the noble Baroness opposite and I disagree, perhaps, about what the effect will be on service users and others, but the test is necessity and proportionality, as was set out so well earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam. Whatever the motivations, it is a good addition to the list, in my view.

As for the noble Baroness’s point that this is will all be voluntary and the legislation will not impose anything on anyone, that really does not hold as a matter of law—not least because, as we discussed earlier, the “may/must” point is really significant; it is not hypothetical. It is hugely significant that, when one is a given a power—whether the Secretary of State is given a power to make regulations or an employer is given a power to issue work notices—they must exercise that power rationally. They cannot ignore that they have that power; they will face litigation. That is compounded in this area because the employers may well be contracted by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State would then have the purchasing power—the significant contractual power as the buyer of the service at one end—and would also wield regulations with the other hand. It is not completely ingenuous to suggest that this is all just helping the discussion and that there is no element of compulsion in it.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, much of the debate on this Bill has been concerned with its substantive content, but my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti draws attention to a major problem with the Bill; namely, its form.

I remind noble Lords that last year two committees of this House reiterated long-standing principles for drafting legislation. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, of which I have the honour to be a member, in its report Democracy Denied?, and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, in its report Government by Diktat, set out those principles, which were overwhelmingly endorsed in the debate in the House on 6 January last year. The fact is that this Bill flouts those principles. That view is reiterated by the reports on the Bill by the Delegated Powers Committee, the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Constitution Committee. In addition, as my noble friend Lord Collins has just pointed out, the Regulatory Policy Committee has described the Bill’s impact assessment as “not fit for purpose”. This raises the question of what steps this House could take to ensure that Bills comply with the principles that are essential for parliamentary democracy in this country.

I turn to my Amendment 36A in this group, which is my attempt to give some substance to—or to redress—the omission pointed out by the Delegated Powers Committee in its report on the Bill. I will read two short paragraphs from our report. Paragraph 19 says:

“The Government have chosen to put no detail in the Bill in relation to minimum service levels, leaving the matter entirely to regulations. Important matters of detail should be included on the face of the Bill, perhaps with a power to supplement those matters in regulations.”


That is my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti’s point. The conclusion, which the committee reached at paragraph 23, is:

“Given the absence of an exhaustive or non-exhaustive list in the Bill of the matters that can be included in regulations, the unconvincing reasons for this power in the Memorandum, and the absence of indicative draft regulations illustrating how the power might be exercised, the House may wish to press the Minister to provide an explanation of how the power to set minimum service levels in new section 234B(1) of the 1992 Act is likely to be exercised. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation, we regard the power as inappropriate.”


My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti says that we can make it good by passing primary legislation. I wonder whether the Government will consider the possibility—even at this stage—of introducing amendments to put those omissions into the Bill to give it at least some semblance of meeting the format and principles for the drafting of legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sorry to trouble the noble Lord a moment further, but could I invite him to express a view on the report of the Delegated Powers Committee? It points out that there is no detail in the Bill and criticises it for that. Does the noble Lord accept that criticism?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

We will be responding in due course to the report from the Delegated Powers Committee. I entirely accept that this is a wide secondary-legislation-making power for the Government, but we think that it is appropriate in these circumstances.

With that, I urge noble Lords not to press their amendments.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Lord Hendy Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd March 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hendy]

18A: The Schedule, page 3, line 31, at end insert—
“(5) Regulations may not prohibit or enable the prohibition of participation in, or any activity in connection with, a strike or other industrial action; or create an offence.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to ensure that the regulations do not breach Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights by permitting the penalisation of individuals for exercising their right to strike.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to three of the amendments in this group; they bring into discussion matters of international legal obligation. Amendment 18A deals with protection against the excessive use of the regulations.

I ought to begin by reiterating something the noble Lord, Lord Allan, mentioned earlier, which is that we are dealing here with fundamental human rights. The right to strike is a fundamental human right. It has been held to be a right protected by Article 11 of the European convention in a series of cases, beginning with Unison v the United Kingdom. It is protected not only by Article 11 but by many other international treaties ratified by the UK. In fact, it is protected in many national constitutions; more than 80 protect the right to strike. Of course, it is not unlimited and there are always restrictions in one way or another, but its fundamental nature is that it is a human right.

So too is the right to bargain collectively, which was held by the European Court of Human Rights to be an essential element of Article 11 in the case Demir and Baykara v Turkey. The significance of that is that the right to strike is fundamental to the right to bargain collectively—in other words, to the protection of workers’ living standards. As was said 70 or so years ago, collective bargaining without the right to strike is effectively collective begging.

The right to strike has been lawful in the UK since at least the Trade Disputes Act 1906. There is no further justification, after the many Acts restricting that right since 1980, for yet further restrictions or limitations on the capacity of workers to defend their living standards. In particular, the European Court of Human Rights guarantees through Article 11 that strikers shall not be penalised for taking part in a strike. There are many cases to that effect, notably Danilenkov v Russia and Ognevenko V Russia.

The purpose of my Amendment 18A, given the breadth of the power to make regulations in this Bill, is to clarify that the Government will not use that power to impose an obligation not to exercise the right to strike or to penalise strikers specifically by creating a criminal offence. If that is what the Government intend or merely contemplate, the noble Lord will no doubt say so. If that is not what the Government intend, then Amendment 18A will cause no inconvenience.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I am happy to give the noble Baroness the commitment she seeks. There is no intention to create any criminal offence within this Bill; it does not do that, and it is absolutely not our intention.

On her follow-up question, the provisions in the TCA relevant to minimum service levels include commitment to ILO conventions, non-regression and rebalancing. Enforcement mechanisms vary, depending on the particular provisions. For the non-regression clauses, enforcement mechanisms include consultation and escalation, involving panels of experts and potential rebalancing measures, all of which would take place at an international level and cannot bring any claims in the domestic courts. I hope that gives the noble Baroness the reassurance she is looking for.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for the clarity of his answer, and to all noble Baronesses and Lords who participated in the debate. I will not do them the disservice of attempting to summarise their speeches.

Let me deal with two points arising from what the Minister has said. First, he asked whether my intention is to kill the Bill. It would certainly be my desire, but that is not the effect of these amendments, for sure. He says Amendment 18A and the other amendments would prevent minimum service levels being set. That is simply wrong, as a matter of law. There is nothing to prohibit the minimum service levels being set. What the amendments propose is that the minimum service levels be set in such a way that, first, they cannot penalise workers for going on strike—individual workers who are requisitioned to provide service under a work notice should not be penalised, in accordance with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights—and, secondly, they comply with the standards of the ILO and the European Social Charter.

That brings me to my second point, which is the importance of the ILO. I say this with the greatest respect, but I am not sure the Minister has quite understood the position of the ILO in the hierarchy of international law so far as the United Kingdom is concerned. Before I explain that, I will make one thing clear: the Minister read a passage from one of the supervisory bodies of the ILO—it was in fact the committee of experts—and suggested that I had not quoted it. I read that very passage on to the record earlier this afternoon; I think Homer might have nodded briefly and missed that. The Minister said that the decisions of the ILO are not binding. In one sense, of course, that is true. Britain was the first country in the world to ratify Convention 87, which is the most ratified of all the conventions of the ILO. It is an international treaty and we are bound by it, but I agree that it is not binding in domestic law.

Secondly, ILO conventions and their jurisprudence are taken into account by the European Court of Human Rights in interpreting the various articles of the European convention, particularly Article 11. If you want to know what Article 11 has to say about the right to strike, it is no good looking at the text of that article. What you have to look at are the decisions of the European court. Every one of them refers to the jurisprudence of the ILO and the European Social Charter in defining what permissible restrictions there may be on the right to strike.

The third reason the ILO is so crucial is because of the trade and co-operation agreement. This is the point I was endeavouring to communicate to the Minister, but I think I failed to do so. I read a few words from Article 399 of the trade and co-operation agreement, but let me read a sentence. Article 399(2) says that

“each Party commits to respecting, promoting and effectively implementing the internationally recognised core labour standards, as defined in the fundamental ILO Conventions”.

So we are bound by the fundamental ILO conventions. Article 399(5) makes specific reference to implementing the provisions of the ILO conventions ratified by the UK and the provisions of the European Social Charter ratified by the UK.

It is not a question of the ILO interfering in the domestic jurisdiction of British courts or the British Parliament. We have chosen to be bound by the provisions of the ILO—a choice that we repeated in 2021 when we ratified the TCA. The fact of the matter is that we do not comply with the requirements of the ILO in relation to minimum service levels, particularly—I mentioned this earlier, but the Minister did not deal with it—because the ILO requires that minimum service levels are set with the intervention or input of the social parties, particularly the trade unions, and that there should be a specified mechanism for resolving any disagreements. That is not what the Bill provides, so we may well be in breach. Having said all that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 18A withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

They lose their protection only if they do not comply with a work notice. The whole principle of this—as the noble Lord has studied industrial relations, he will understand—is that, for a strike to be lawful, effectively you are breaking the contract you have with your employer. If the strike is lawfully called, you are entitled for the purpose of industrial action to break that contract. This merely reinstates that contract between you and your employer. If a work notice is issued and you do not comply with it, it would be treated as an unauthorised absence. There is no intention to say that that will result in dismissal. I would have thought that that would be very much a last course. As I said at Second Reading, we do not believe it will result in people being dismissed. We believe people will comply with the regulations and the law, and that the Bill will have the effect that we intended.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

I am sorry but I did not quite understand the Minister. I can see that dismissal for refusing to comply with a work notice might be a matter of last resort for the employer, but we are dealing here with the potential for bad employers to take the opportunity to sack somebody, and they might sack somebody without notice. If they do that, there is no possibility at all of the worker taking up a grievance. I do understand what other legal avenues there might be for such a worker—I can visualise none.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I was responding to the point I was asked about, and I made the point that, under the Bill, it is clear that an employer must not have regard to whether a worker is or is not a member of a union when issuing the work notice. I was outlining procedures that they could then follow if that was the case. Ultimately, they could challenge it in court, and that would be a matter for the courts.

I was going to go back to the point from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, but I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, wants to intervene.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I do not accept the word “victimised”. A work notice effectively says that somebody has to fulfil their whole working contract as normal, whereby they come into work and get paid for it. That is not victimisation in any conventional sense of the word.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

The Minister raises Section 146 of the 1992 Act, which protects against detriment on union grounds, as he rightly says. But “union grounds” means either union membership or union activity, and Section 151 is the same protection against dismissal on grounds of union membership or union activity. Can the Minister explain why only union membership is protected in this Bill and not union activity?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

It is because, as we already said, Section 146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act already provides a remedy for workers who are discriminated against on union grounds. That section will remain applicable here, as I said earlier.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

I apologise for intervening again. The point is that Sections 146 and 151 specify membership and activities, whereas this Bill protects against discrimination on the grounds of union membership alone. If the same protection against union activity is required in Sections 146 and 151, it should be required here as well. The obvious implication, if you were arguing a case in court, is that that protection is not given under this Bill, otherwise it would have been included.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I will seek further legal advice. I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that if the provision already exists in other applicable legislation, there is no need to duplicate that provision in another statute. I will certainly check that with the lawyers for the noble Lord.

Amendment 29 seeks to require the employers to be satisfied that the work notice does not identify more people than reasonably necessary before giving a work notice. However, as we set out in new Section 234C(5), the employer is already required to not identify more persons in the work notice than are reasonably necessary for the purposes of providing MSLs.

Amendment 30, meanwhile, seeks to require the employer to assess the equality implications of the work notice. Again, in our view, this is not necessary. The Bill does nothing to reduce the existing obligations of employers under the Equality Act 2010. As I said, there is an existing legal provision that continues to apply. There is no need to restate it.

Finally, Amendment 31 seeks to require the employer to assess the health and safety implications of the work notice and consult health and safety representatives. The Government’s view is that the current requirements in the Bill strike the right balance between the views and perspectives of employers and unions to enable a reasonable and fair work notice to be issued. As I have said, the Bill explicitly requires that employers must consult the relevant trade union and have regard to its views before issuing a work notice.

Adding any further steps or requirements to this process will result in disproportionate and costly burdens for employers and could result in delays to the issuing of a work notice by the employer and therefore delays to minimum service levels being applied. I fully accept that this may well be the purpose of the amendment, but I hope the Opposition understand why the Government cannot accept it. Additionally, when drawing up work notices, employers must still adhere to the relevant requirements set out in existing health and safety law. That is unchanged by this legislation.

For these reasons, the Government resist these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister may feel a sense of déjà vu in this group, but the point is to turn the focus to the individual worker named on the work order. This is not about the union or the company; it is to amplify the effect that this Bill can have on the individual. That is why I am happy to present Amendment 32 and to support the other two amendments in the group.

Amendment 32 would protect employees from the detrimental action of not complying with a work order. The point here is to amplify that, at the moment, failure to comply with a work notice could be regarded as a breach of contract. This amendment seeks to remove that possibility. Why? Because we are looking at a list that is prepared by an employer, with no sense of what criteria that employer is using to deliver the list. The employer assesses the number of people, and indeed the names of those people, who are required to produce a minimum service level that a Minister has decided with very little recourse to Parliament. It is the individual who is at the end of that chain, over which they have no control or power whatever. That is the point I seek to emphasise here. It is the individual at the end who will carry the can for this Bill, if it becomes an Act.

I have proposed this amendment because I want to emphasise very clearly that, although the Minister says the Bill is not about wanting to sack people, it can, and because it can, it will be used in the future to sack people for not complying with work orders—work orders produced in a process over which employees have essentially no power or ability to appeal whatever. It is an absolute infringement of their freedom. That is why I propose this amendment. Under the Bill, the employee could be sacked for taking strike action that has been agreed by a democratic ballot, it having gone through all the hoops that the Government require such ballots to observe. Because the employer has decided to put them on a list, the employee cannot do that.

From everything that has come from the Dispatch Box so far, I think it will be hard for the Minister to understand this. However, it is something my colleagues on these Benches and I have discussed a lot, and which we find to be a really important element of the Bill. It is about the relationships between unions and their employers, and between the employers and the Government, but in the end, it is about a fundamental individual right, and this Bill removes that right. I beg to move.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Fox. My Amendment 32A simply amplifies the noble Lord’s amendment and takes it a little further.

As I understand it, and the Minister will correct me if I have misunderstood the Bill, the consequence of being requisitioned and then refusing to work during a strike is that there will be no protection from unfair dismissal. As many other Members of the Committee have already said, if that is the case, bad employers—of which there are some—will use that as an excuse to be rid of people who they regard as trouble-makers, whether or not they are union activists.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 ---

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 33 and 34. I share my noble friend Lord Collins’s outrage at this proposal. It is one thing to set minimum service levels and another thing to specify requisition notices by way of a work notice, but to require trade unions to organise themselves so as to break their own strike is a step that has never before been taken in this country and, so far as I am aware, is not required in any other country in Europe.

I remind the Committee that the provision in the Bill that we are seeking to discuss says

“the strike is not protected as respects that person’s employer if … the union fails to take reasonable steps to ensure that all members of the union who are identified in the work notice comply with the notice.”

So the obligation on the union is to

“take reasonable steps to ensure”

that all members comply with the notice. That is a very heavy obligation to put on unions. In principle it is objectionable, but the extent of it makes it even more so.

I cannot develop the objection on principle further, but there are some practical considerations here that perhaps the Minister can consider. We are envisaging a work notice given by the employer to the union, setting out names of a number of workers who are required to work and the work that they are required to do; we remind ourselves that, at the end of the Bill, it is said that that can be on a daily basis. If you have one employer and one strike affecting a small number of workers, that may be a relatively easy obligation to comply with.

However, I remind the Minister that the Bill applies to the education service. I have just looked up the Office for National Statistics site, which tells me that there are 32,226 schools in this country—although in fact I understand from the National Education Union that it balloted only some 24,000-odd of those. Think of that: even if we assume that only half the employers decide to supply a work notice, on a daily basis the unions are going to get 10,000 or 12,000 emails with a list of teachers who are required to be in. The union then has to set that list against its own membership database in order to determine which of them are members of the union, and then has to communicate with each one of them in order to demonstrate that they have taken “reasonable steps to ensure” that those members comply with the notice. This is just nonsense, is it not? It really must be.

Part of the problem is that the Bill does not define “reasonable steps”—that will be left to the courts to determine. I have done enough of these industrial action cases over the last 40 years to know that employers’ barristers—all friends of mine—are going to use every argument in the book to demonstrate that the union has not taken the “reasonable steps” that the employer says it should have. One of those, of course, will be to say that the union did not threaten to discipline any members who refused to comply with the notice or expel anybody, and to ask what it did do.

All of this is against the background of a union having committed itself, after a vote in favour by the members—a vote which meets all the thresholds—to advancing a strike. All the publicity that goes out from the union’s website and journal and in emails to members will say that it is calling a strike on, say, the 24th of the month, starting at midnight, and calling for members to join the strike, go on the picket line and participate—this is their fight and their struggle for better pay and conditions, or whatever it is. However, the union has to demonstrate that it identified those members appearing on a work notice in order to show that it took reasonable steps to ensure that those members complied. This is simply not realistic, and it is not acceptable.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Following on from the noble Lord, Lord Hendy—I apologise for butting in—it is not quite as simple as that. What happens if, of the employers list, 30% of them go off sick? Who is accountable for filling in the gap? Is it the union? Does it have to take “reasonable steps” to find substitutes? The Minister shakes his head to say that it does not—that is good. Perhaps when he replies he can explain what happens in the event of a significant number of those people going off sick.

I will not add any more, as I am sure there will be plenty from the Benches of His Majesty’s Opposition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, this is something of an hors d’oeuvre for the next group, so I will save my comments on this issue—although I thoroughly agree with the noble Baroness—for Amendment 37, which I consider to be a meatier version of the same issue. This is clearly starting the move to the territory where we give Parliament the opportunity at least to scrutinise, if not amend, what comes before it. We will come to more of that in a few minutes.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, at the risk of saying what I said earlier, if this amendment is not accepted by the Government, that presents a problem to the whole House as to what is to be done about Bills that do not conform to the elementary requirements of various committees, where detail is not published in the Bills but reserved to regulations. That problem will have to be confronted if the Government are not prepared to accept this very modest amendment, as my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti put it.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. To start with the question from the noble Lord, Lord Collins, about the Government’s response to the reports from the Delegated Powers Committee, the Constitution Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I am happy to confirm that I expect to be able to respond to those reports before Report.

This amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, requires indicative minimum service levels to be set out before regulations can be made for that service. The Government recognise the importance of relevant parties having sight of a minimum service level before it is applied. That is why Secretaries of State must consult on minimum service level regulations and why Parliament will have an opportunity to contribute to the consultation and scrutinise those regulations, which are subject to the affirmative procedure, as I have said before.

The effect of this amendment is superfluous, given that all parties will be able to know the proposed minimum service levels once regulations are laid in the usual way. This approach ensures that the implementation of MSL is not significantly delayed, thereby not extending the disproportionate impact that strikes can have on the public. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, will understand, if not agree, why the Government cannot accept the amendment.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Lord Hendy Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 9th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab)]

My Lords, we have had a reference to Charles Dickens; I am going to mention Lewis Carroll, because I think this is straight out of Alice in Wonderland: you are wandering through a maze, you do not know what questions to ask, you ask a question and all of a sudden the answer is, “Off with his head”—or “Off with her head” in my case. It really is very difficult to pin things down to common-sense questions and to pin the Minister down as to what he may or may not finally include in either the Bill or the statutory instruments. I will have a go, however, because I think the noble Lord, Lord Henley, is quite right that the report we have been referring to is quite a mild report.

I was particularly drawn to the conclusions and recommendations, one of which said—I think the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has already referred to it—

“We do not consider that the Government has given clear … reasons why the current legal protections that apply to strikes and the current practice of establishing voluntary minimum service levels are no longer sufficient to balance the rights of the wider public against the rights of the employees and unions concerned.”


I think that pinpoints exactly why the Bill is just an antagonistic approach to unions, rather than a sensible set of proposals. I have a specific question for the Minister is, the report suggests several amendments in its annexe: will the Government consider its amendment 4? I am not proposing it; I am just asking if this is something that would be considered. The recommendation is:

“In deciding whether to identify a person in a work notice and in specifying the work required to be carried out by them, the employer must not have regard to whether the person is or is not a member of a trade union (or a particular trade union) or any trade union activity the person has undertaken or otherwise been involved in.”


Are the Government minded to accept that amendment from the report?

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Donaghy. After the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, I really ought to declare my interests as in the register. I reflect that, over the last 41 years, I have represented many unions in strike cases including, in the last 20 years, a number in the European Court of Human Rights. Of course, I support Amendments 1, 50 and 51. I shall speak to Amendment 51 and the deployment of the JCHR report before the Bill comes into effect. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for expressing his view of the JCHR report and I agree with my noble friend Lady Donaghy that it is a mild report. In my view, it is too mild, too gentle. As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, rightly pointed out, the ultimate arbiter will be the European Court of Human Rights. The difficulty for us, of course, is that any decision challenging this legislation in that court will arise out of a factual situation that has not yet occurred and will take years: it will be a long time.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Lord Hendy Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 9th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of London]

My Lords, I rise to speak to this group of amendments on the inclusion of health services in the Bill. I am sorry that I have not been able to speak before. I declare my interests as set out in the register.

I have been a union member. I joined as a nurse—and as an NHS manager and a civil servant in the Department of Health—because I wanted protection. The relationship with unions was critical; it was the way in which we improved patient care. One of my overall concerns about the Bill is that it has the potential to break down the relationship which is so vital for patient care, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said.

I am grateful to the Royal College of Nursing, which has helped me in considering the Bill. I am sure that it will not surprise noble Lords to know that it does not support the Bill, for what I see as some good reasons: not least because it curtails the freedom to participate in what otherwise is lawful action.

My right reverend friend the Bishop of Manchester regrets that he cannot be here, but he shares my concern that far too much power is given to the Secretary of State in what we have already heard is only a skeleton Bill, and that there is a complete lack of clarity about how it could be used. It is open to abuse. I am surprised that, as many others have said, the detailed policy that becomes legislation is not there. I am concerned that those who work in the health service probably cannot see whether they are in there or not.

I support the noble Lord, Lord Allan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, regarding the definition of health services. It is such a wide definition that leaves it to the imagination whether you are covered by it or not. I do not believe that this is for the professional groups, but for the individual. I am also very conscious that we have talked a lot about trade unions, but the health service is about individual nurses, doctors, health visitors and midwives who seek to do their best for patients. One of my great concerns is that the Bill could lead to the sacking of staff for taking what otherwise would be seen as lawful strike action. They are the nurses, midwives and doctors whom we can ill afford to lose.

As has already been said, the reality is that those who work in the NHS do not take strike action easily. They choose to do it only because they are frustrated that their voices are not being heard when they express their concerns about patient standards, workforce levels, recruitment and retention, and the role that fair pay plays in this. In September, the Nuffield Trust reported that 40,000 nurses left the profession last year, and we are still waiting to see the arrival of the workforce plan. Meanwhile, healthcare workers are spread more thinly, at the expense of their mental health and well-being.

It is amazing that the legislation talks about minimum service levels, yet this Government resist setting minimum standards for nursing and other health professions. If we want to ensure standards of patient care throughout the 365 days of the year, the focus should be not on banning strikes but on getting in place minimum staffing levels to ensure that quality patient care is given. For the Government to fire anyone using strike action when they try to raise a concern about the conditions set by the Government is ridiculous and undermines the dedication of staff in the NHS.

I have a question. Rather than passing the Bill, should the Government not be spending more time listening to and addressing the concerns of healthcare staff, to hear the solutions they believe they have to ensure that patients get the care that they require?

Finally, the other concern that has been raised is around trust and staff morale. The reason staff in the health service are striking partly relates to morale, and also to trust. I am concerned that the Bill will undermine the trust that is there and further undermine morale. We saw something of that trust undermined when this Government were seeking for healthcare professionals to be double-vaccinated against Covid. Although I am a great supporter of vaccination, we were heading for disaster. I am concerned that the Bill undermines trust and morale. What risk assessment has been made of the effect of passing this Bill on staffing levels of the NHS in particular?

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, I have the honour to serve on your Lordships’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. As noble Lords will know, in our 27th report we dealt with this particular Bill.

There is an issue which arises in relation to these two amendments. I would like to read to your Lordships just three paragraphs from our report. Paragraph 17 says that

“the Government are ‘of the view that the detail required to set the level of service for each relevant service is not appropriate for primary legislation’. But the Memorandum does not explain why setting out any detail on the face of the Bill would be inappropriate. Parliament is not allergic to matters of detail, particularly where it relates to an important matter such as the right to strike.”

Paragraph 19 says:

“The Government have chosen to put no detail in the Bill in relation to minimum service levels, leaving the matter entirely to regulations. Important matters of detail should be included on the face of the Bill, perhaps with a power to supplement those matters in regulations.”


At paragraph 23, in conclusion on this aspect—there are other aspects to be dealt with—we say:

“Given the absence of an exhaustive or non-exhaustive list in the Bill of the matters that can be included in regulations, the unconvincing reasons for this power in the Memorandum, and the absence of indicative draft regulations illustrating how the power might be exercised, the House may wish to press the Minister to provide an explanation of how the power to set minimum service levels in new section 234B(1) of the 1992 Act is likely to be exercised. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation, we regard the power as inappropriate.”


I looked at the consultation paper that emerged in relation to health services, which has already been remarked upon. It is confined simply to the ambulance service. I looked to see what the criteria for setting minimum service levels might be. I can see that, right at the end, there is half a page suggesting to consultees that they might wish to specify category 1 and/or category 2, and that in respect of one service they might be favourable to a percentage of the ambulance service being carried out. But there is nothing, as far as I can see—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—to indicate what the metrics are. What are the factors to be taken into account in setting minimum service levels?

This is not just for the ambulance service. As has already been remarked, in Amendment 4, my noble friends set out a whole list of potential categories of worker in the health service—and very diverse it is too. What is it that the Government have got in mind to formulate the way in which the minimum service levels will be articulated in respect of each of these trades, professions and subcategories of worker? That is my question to the noble Lord.

[Lord Prentis of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 3 and 4 in the names of my noble friends Lord Collins and Lady O’Grady. Noble Lords will know that I have already expressed my opposition to the Bill and, in particular, my opposition to skeleton legislation such as this, which gives Ministers unfettered powers to amend, repeal or revoke, calling into question parliamentary scrutiny, which matters.

Amendments 3 and 4 relate to health and would remove health services from the Bill. Quite simply, this Bill has the potential to wreck the partnership working that has been the bedrock of industrial relations in our NHS over 70 years. The workforce is 75% women, as we have heard, and 29% ethnic minority. In relation to health, the Bill is rushed. It is deficient to its core. It weakens protections against unfair dismissal. It flies in the face of ILO labour standards, and it could violate the Human Rights Act. Much of the Government’s argument rests on the ambulance service, which has just been mentioned.

In November, the Government praised the NHS, stating that important factors exist to mitigate the impact of industrial action in that sector. It was put forward as a really good way of working when it comes to industrial action. But by January, the same Government said that ambulance workers had refused to provide a national safety net. What an about-face in only six weeks. Why did it happen? What had been discovered that was not there before? Nothing could be further from the truth. Unions and staff representatives reach direct agreement with their employers. They do it before any action is taken, not on the day. It includes call volumes, rapid mechanisms to bring staff in if needed and constant contact with management. They reflect local circumstances. I do not know how many people have seen the folders of procedures—I would love to give a copy to the Minister—but they are not just two or three pieces of paper; they are whole folders of procedures. The Minister said that a number of ambulance trusts stated that they were not getting agreements to enable them to be satisfied. Where are those trusts? We asked employers which trusts are not happy, and said that we would talk to them, and we were told in no uncertain terms that they did not know where the information had come from.

Looking at, say, the ambulance service, and at whether it needs this additional restriction on taking industrial action, I am not too certain why this should be the case. The Government criticised ambulance workers for guaranteeing only category 1 999 calls. This is misleading. Calls in category 2 are answered if the call has been put through by a clinician, and usually only half of category 2 calls are an emergency. The Government have run two successful pilots where category 2 calls have been directed to alternative services rather than being dealt with by the 999 system. So why does this Bill call for 100% answering of 999 calls—the so-called minimum standard—when in 2022 the figure answered on a normal day was 77% and in 2017 was only 76%?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Markham (Con)]

First, yes, that has been worked through on this. Secondly, that is one of the purposes of the consultation. Thirdly—this is the point that I was about to make—as the noble Lord will know from my contributions, I always like to follow up in writing when there is a detailed question. If I have missed anything or the opportunity to make more thorough points, I shall take the opportunity to do so.

I hope that I have given a good sense of direction of where we are coming from on this and why we feel that this provision is essential in these circumstances to protect the patients.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the Minister for spelling out the criterion for minimum service levels in the health sector, which is life and limb. Can I explore that a bit further? Life and limb would obviously have applicability to A&E and, clearly, to the ambulance service. Is not the implication that that means 100% service for the ambulance service? I cannot see how ambulance staff are going to know, until they get a call, whether it is a life and limb situation or simply somebody who has fallen, is uninjured but needs helping up—or whatever the situation might be. Can the Minister assist me on that?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Yes, that is very much what happens at the moment, so that is the categorisation process that is entered into—and, from that, they categorise whether it is category 1, 2, 3 or 4, and the response will depend on that.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I shall just finish and get the point out, and then happily hear the noble Lord’s follow-up question. In these circumstances, we are saying that it is around category 1 and 2, where we really believe that there are those life-threatening circumstances.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

That is absolutely understood—but is not the implication that the ambulance crews have to be in the ambulances? They cannot be standing on a picket line; they have to be in the ambulances to receive the calls. It is only when they receive the call that they are going to know whether it is category 1, 2 or 3, or whatever the specification is. Surely it follows that 100% service must be provided by the control room and the ambulance service—or have I got it wrong?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

As I say, we have some good experience, because of course this is exactly what is currently happening. What is agreed between the local trusts and the unions in those circumstances is something along the lines that 50% of calls—that is my figure as an example, and please do not take it as read—are category 1 and 2. The others are not in that category, so because of that we would look for a level of workforce to cover that level of calls. Please do not take the 50% as read; I am just taking that as an example, so that the noble Lord understands the principle behind this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

I am so sorry to intervene again; this is absolutely my last intervention. If the criterion is life and limb then many of the categories listed by my noble friends Lord Collins and Lady O’Grady—community health services, pharmacists, mental health services, sexual health services and so on—can have no fear that there will be minimum service levels prescribed for them, because they are never in a life and limb situation.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Correct. I emphasise once more the process set out here: if it were decided that there was that threat, that is the point at which we would go into consultation. That is the thinking behind the process. We would have to believe that in such an area there would be a threat to life and limb, and would then go into consultation on minimum service levels. I hope that this has been helpful. It has been helpful to me as well, as ever, to see the value of the Lords. I am a big believer in critical challenge.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, in the previous group I drew attention to the fact that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report criticised the absence of detail in the Bill in relation to the provision of minimum service levels. In that group, the Minister explained to us that the criterion in setting minimum service levels in the health sector would be life and limb. Will the Minister say what the criteria are for the setting of minimum service levels in the education sector? What factors are going to be taken into account? A second and related point is about how the minimum service level is to be set. Is it going to be some percentage of the hours that teachers do, or something of that kind? What is it that the Government have in mind by way of a metric to measure the minimum service level?

As an associated point, what is the metric that employers will use to identify the workers necessary in a work notice to implement the minimum service level? My noble friend Lady O’Grady pointed out in opening the debate on this group that millions of hours are given by public service workers, and hundreds of thousands of those hours are provided by teachers in unpaid voluntary overtime. Quite clearly, the minimum service level, still more the work notice, presumably cannot specify that teachers have to work a minimum service which includes voluntary unpaid overtime, so the minimum service that could conceivably be specified is limited to the 35 or 38 hours or whatever it is per week specified in the contract of employment of each teacher. Effectively, if the Government implement 100% minimum service levels, there will be a work to rule. All the teachers will do the absolute minimum hours that their contract specifies. I invite the Minister to help us on how that could possibly be exceeded in a minimum service level and on what it is that the Government have in mind, taking that very important factor alluded to by my noble friend into account.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure, as my noble friend Lord Markham said earlier, to respond to your Lordships’ critical challenge. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness Lady O’Grady; it really is a pleasure to be across the Dispatch Box for their amendments. I put on record the Government’s appreciation for all teachers, teaching assistants and staff who work across our schools and colleges and in higher education for the extraordinary and valuable job that they do.

Amendments 6 and 7 seek to remove the education sector and education services that are within scope of having minimum service levels implemented. As noble Lords know, the key sectors outlined in the Bill broadly stem from the 1992 Act as amended by the Trade Union Act 2016, and they have long been recognised as important for society to function effectively.

The noble Baroness asked why we need minimum service levels in education services. She can probably anticipate my answer, which is twofold: first, they have far-reaching consequences for children, who are potentially denied access to education if their teachers or other staff are on strike, and, secondly, it has an impact on their parents, many of whom work in other critical services but are unable to go to work. It is only right that these essential services, which the public pay for and expect to be there when they need them, are included in the Bill so that there is a reasonable balance between the ability of workers to strike and the rights of the public. The Government therefore cannot support the amendments.

Amendment 7 would exclude the vast majority of education services from the Bill. The Government believe it is right that the detail of specific services and minimum service levels is set out in secondary legislation. I am afraid that is why, in response to the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Hendy, who asked for specific detail on criteria and metrics for minimum service, I am unable to give that detail to the Committee today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

We absolutely know that the pandemic has had a terrible impact on school attendance. That is why I say that the strikes at the moment are particularly unhelpful for children when we are trying to send a clear message that school is not an optional extra but something that you go to every single day. To have renewed disruption is not helpful for those children or the message that we are trying to send them. I am not confident, but I hope that I have reassured the Committee enough that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

Can I just inquire about the Minister’s proposition that all options are being considered? Can she say whether the possibility has been excluded from consideration of requiring teachers under a work notice fulfilling a minimum service level to carry out unpaid voluntary overtime?

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I am not aware of the details, but I am not sure that it would be appropriate to comment at this point.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, the previous Minister to answer in this debate told us repeatedly that the Government hope to rely on voluntary arrangements. However, the damage is done if the service is listed in the Bill. This morning, I had a conversation with someone who is involved in the recruitment of nurses. He said that, going back to the time of the pandemic, when we stood on our doorsteps and clapped, the university concerned was getting a lot of recruits for nursing courses. That has now fallen away because of problems in the health service and concerns about the impact of industrial action. This serves to illustrate that we have to be very careful with industrial relations; the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, summed that up better than I can so I will stop at this point.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, I have four questions for the Minister. First, I appreciate that this ground has been covered to a certain extent—at least, what has been covered provokes me to ask this question again—but the noble Lord, Lord Markham, specified that the criterion for implementing or setting a minimum service level in the health service was danger to life and limb. In relation to transport, what is the criterion, or what are the criteria? Once those are established, how is the minimum service level to be computed? Is it a percentage of existing services that will have to be provided, or is some other metric to be used?

The second issue is the boundaries of the transport sector, a point that my noble friend Lord Collins mentioned in passing. The transport sector can be very wide indeed. Obviously, it could cover road transport, freight, passenger buses and so on, but what about parcel transportation, parcel delivery—post delivery? Does it extend to the Post Office? There are a multitude of examples. I would be very grateful if the Minister could tell us what the boundaries are.

The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, mentioned a strike by cleaners. If the minimum service level for rail passenger transport requires that a certain percentage of trains run, what is the implication for workers other than those who drive the trains? What is the impact on guards, conductors and signallers? If we run half the commuter trains in and out of London, do we not need a full complement of signallers to do it? Are they to be banned from taking strike action altogether by a minimum service level of 100%? What about the ticketing staff and the guards who are in charge of collecting fares and so on? If they go on strike, what are the implications there for a minimum service level? There is also track maintenance. You cannot have 20% of track maintenance. Presumably you need all the track maintenance to keep the lines open. Is it proposed that there would be a 100% minimum service level for track maintenance staff?

The third issue is overtime, which also arose in relation to teachers. Anybody who knows anything about the railways knows that a rail passenger service runs on voluntary overtime—drivers working on the days that they are rostered to have off. Of course, they are paid, unlike the teachers. Nevertheless, it is voluntary. It is beyond their contractual obligation. How will setting a minimum service level—further, how will setting a work notice—avoid imposing an obligation that those who normally provide voluntary overtime must provide it to maintain the minimum service level? Is that what is being proposed? Is that what the Government have in mind, or can the Minister tell us now that there will be no requirement for rail staff to work voluntary overtime?

The fourth issue is one that the Minister has heard me raise before. This Bill clearly constrains and limits the right to strike. There can be no doubt about that. This has implications under the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement. Articles 386 and 387 state that where the standards of the International Labour Organization—ILO Convention No. 87 and so on—are diminished by one of the parties, either the UK or the EU, and that affects trade, this will be a violation of that agreement.

The Minister may say that none of these sectors will affect trade. That may be dubious in relation to the transport sector but, leaving that aside, even if that does not apply, Article 399 of the trade and co-operation agreement requires the United Kingdom and the countries of the EU to implement those ILO conventions that they have ratified, including ILO Convention No. 87, which protects the right to strike, and requires them to implement the provisions of the European Social Charter, which they have ratified. The United Kingdom has ratified paragraph 4 of Article 6 of the European Social Charter 1961, which specifically provides that workers have the right to take collective action. The Bill unarguably diminishes that right, which will also lead to a violation of the treaty. Can the Minister explain why he thinks that there is no possible violation involved?

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I will try to be brief to help the Minister. In a throwaway remark, I think, at Second Reading, he said, with his usual flair and panache, something like, “I notice that noble Lords opposite are very quick to invoke the nurses but not the railway workers”. But that was not quite the case, because a number of us, myself included, had happily invoked rail workers. I will not talk only about nurses. I have travelled on many trains up and down this country and I hugely admire rail workers, who are not just drivers but the people who look after us on our journeys. I have seen rail workers looking after people in distress on overcrowded trains in the heat and helping the infirm on and off trains. As a woman often travelling alone intercity late at night, I have been very grateful for there being somebody in that carriage, so I am very happy to invoke the rail workers.

The Minister said that as though that meant we were on weaker ground tactically—a bit more embarrassed about rail workers than, for example, health workers. It made me wonder whether this is not the real target of the legislation. If rail workers generally, or the RMT in particular—perhaps because the general secretary has a certain hairstyle—are the real target for this legislation, why can we not have targeted legislation that includes what the criteria are and what the service level agreement is? That would be better legislation.

My noble friends have pointed out the differences in the approaches of the three Ministers that we have heard so far. A life and limb test was offered in the context of healthcare. There was no test offered in the case of education, but some embarrassment and a real desire to never have to invoke this legislation at all. Is this difference of opinion a difference of policy and approach in the different departments or, to be more charitable to the Government, is it because these services are just too different and it is not appropriate for them all to be bundled into a single Bill to give sweeping powers to the indivisible Secretary of State to legislate by fiat?

Either way, whichever is true, it is not appropriate for legislation. I say once more to the Minister: if this is about rail services, there are ways to tackle that, with or without legislation, given the very influential role the Government have in relation to the private companies through contracts and so on. If this is supposed to be general emergency legislation, we need criteria suggesting that this is a proper emergency—not in healthcare but in getting teachers to do mandatory unpaid overtime in other areas. A real problem of inconsistency has been identified in the varying groups, and that is why I do not think they have been repetitive but a voyage of discovery about what may or may not be the real motivation and about the obvious weaknesses in the Bill.

Finally, if I may say so, the question posed by my noble friend Lord Hendy about whether a potential mandatory requirement for people to do voluntary unpaid work will—or might—feature, is within the vires of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I am sorry if the noble Lord is disappointed. I answered the questions that were asked of me and most of them were about rail services. That is what we have issued the consultation on, which is why I was answering the questions. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, asked me about bus services so I answered that question. I do not know how the noble Lord computes that we are somehow uninterested in other sectors. This legislation will specify transport services as an appropriate power for the Secretary of State to designate minimum service levels for, but the only one that we have issued on transport services at the moment is on passenger rail. That does not mean we are not interested in other transport services.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

I asked the Minister about the trade and co-operation agreement. He did not refer to that. I do not know if he wishes to do so or if he thinks it is completely irrelevant.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I do not think it is irrelevant. We stand completely by the trade and co-operation agreement, but I am not sure how the EU would have a problem with minimum service level agreements, given how many other European countries, including Italy, France and Spain, have minimum service level agreements in place in their legislation. I am not sure how it could accuse us of undermining the TCA.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

I will not repeat what I said earlier today, but it is quite clear that the ILO in particular imposes conditions on minimum service levels that this Bill does not comply with. That is the difficulty for the Government.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Those countries do not sack workers in these circumstances. We could end up with nurses and teachers being sacked.

We are led to believe that the Bill is a legal provision that will give incredible powers to Secretaries of State across a wide range of industries. Actually, the Minister did not address the question of aviation that the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, and I raised. It makes no sense that that sector, in this broad way, has been put in the Bill. Surely, as my noble friend said, the Transport Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill would have attracted detailed scrutiny about how minimum service levels would operate and how to legislate for them in the railway industry. I have a sneaking suspicion that it was deemed that, “This won’t work; it will be too politically difficult and have too many legal implications. Let’s just give ourselves the power, and then we can determine through the comfort of secondary legislation how we might threaten this and implement it.”

At the end of the day, we will be able to scrutinise other elements of this Bill regarding how the minimum service levels will be set. It has been an interesting exercise today to scrutinise the generality of why these six sectors were picked but also to go through each one separately; we have been able to better understand the range of opinion within the Government and different government departments. I still think that, while the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, can hide behind the legal definition that it will be the responsibility of the employers, everyone out there knows that it will be this Government who will be telling employers to introduce these minimum service levels. The Government will therefore have to take responsibility and be accountable for the mess that they create. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Lord Hendy Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 2nd March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, also in the interests of brevity, I will just say that there is real fear and concern that we will end up with a massive mishmash of legal confusion in this area. That concern is very real in the world of work, in particular in areas such as equality—not least in equal pay for work of equal value and protection for insecure workers, where so many advances have depended on EU-derived legislation and case law. Previous judgments will no longer be binding, and issues will have to go through the judicial system again. As Michael Ford KC wrote in the Financial Times:

“Workers and employers will be back at square one. The whole lengthy and expensive process of appeals will have to be repeated. Even the most enthusiastic lawyer views such a … task with dismay.”


Having to argue those key points again will be costly and cause delays. Frankly, that usually benefits those with the biggest wallets.

The Bill hands huge powers to, and puts enormous pressure on, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, which have been instructed to depart from case law informed by EU law if they consider it right to do so. Of course, the chances are that there will be an avalanche of requests from lower courts or tribunals making references to higher courts about departing from retained EU case law. The result will be workers and employers spending more time in court—in a system that already has huge delays—in a desperate attempt to find out what the law now means.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

I will make a short point about Amendment 61A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Whitty. In the amendment, he seeks to exclude from the effect of Clause 3 employment rights and health and safety at work. At the end of Tuesday, I sought to demonstrate that health and safety at work was a protected area which could not be repealed or amended under the Bill because of the protection given by the trade and co-operation agreement, which my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, mentioned this evening. I will explain why it covers some but not all employment rights.

There are two ways in which it operates. The first is via Article 387, which requires that a party, including the UK,

“shall not weaken or reduce, in a manner affecting trade or investment between the Parties, its labour and social levels of protection below the levels in place at the end of the transition period, including by failing to effectively enforce its law and standards.”

Indeed, Article 387.4 requires that:

“The Parties shall continue to strive to increase their respective labour and social levels of protection”.


On Tuesday, I pointed out that labour and social levels of protection are defined by Article 386, which includes not only

“occupational health and safety standards”

but

“fundamental rights at work … fair working conditions and employment standards … information and consultation rights at company level; or … restructuring of undertakings.”

It is quite apparent that many of the EU laws on employment are protected by that definition.

The other way in which some employment rights are protected is by Article 399.5:

“Each Party commits to implementing all the ILO Conventions that the United Kingdom and the Member States have respectively ratified and the different provisions of the European Social Charter that, as members of the Council of Europe, the Member States and the United Kingdom have respectively accepted.”


I will not reiterate the many ILO conventions which protect employment rights at work, but Members of the Committee may not be so familiar with the European Social Charter. I will not read the text of the relevant provisions, but I will just mention that Article 2 protects the right to just conditions of work; Article 3 protects the right to safe and healthy working conditions; Article 4 protects the right to a fair remuneration; Article 7 concerns the right of children and young persons to protection; and Article 8 concerns the right of employed women to protection. There are other provisions as well.

For these reasons, it appears to me that my noble friend Lord Whitty is right to seek protection for employment rights, or at least some employment rights, that are covered within those two ambits, as well as health and safety at work.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Lord Hendy Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, could I raise one point on delay? I am trying to visualise a situation in which officials are considering a particular set of regulations—let us not identify them—that are complicated. Therefore, the possibility of delaying a decision on those regulations is under way. We get to 30 December 2023: no statutory instrument has been laid, because they are still considering whether to delay consideration. How is this to be considered “scrutinised by the House”? There will be nothing there to scrutinise—there will be no statutory instrument—and the House will be thinking that this set of regulations will disappear on 31 December.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I will give my noble friend the Minister a couple of thoughts to take away.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 27 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. I have always had great reservations about extending the sunset clause by any time at all, and I am quite surprised that nobody has mentioned this. The Bill gives the Government astronomical powers to use secondary legislation not only to amend EU law but to create completely new laws. I have great worries about doing this for any longer than is absolutely necessary. We have to think very carefully about whether we want to extend this period at all.

The noble Lord, Lord Benyon, has said—at least, it has been attributed to him— that, by default, if we cannot think what else we are going to do with these laws, we will keep them. If the Government keep just to the sunset clause of the end of this year, they will have to keep virtually everything—I do not know why anybody has an argument with that—and they can then revise it under primary legislation later if we do not have this extension at all. We have to very seriously think about this.

The real solution to all this is, of course, Amendment 44 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, which says that we must have a sifting system to decide what we do with all this legislation. An awful lot of it can go through under secondary legislation, particularly if we are keeping it, but, at the same time, some bits of legislation will make major changes to EU law, and that should be done under primary legislation. If we have that as a sifting system—I am not sure I agree with the mechanism that he suggests, but I agree in principle with his amendment—all this falls by the side, because we then have a system where all this can be dealt with. We can extend the period beyond the end of this year and it can all be dealt with sensibly like that. As long as we are viewing this amendment on its own, I certainly could not support it and would advocate for saying that we should have sudden death at the end of this year, concentrate the minds of everybody and either keep this law or get rid of it, but do not muck about with it for endless years to come.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

I shall speak to Amendment 63, to which I added my name to those of the three noble Baronesses, Lady Jolly, Lady McIntosh and Lady Finlay. Amendment 63 would protect health and safety by requiring a health and safety assessment of each piece of legislation which will, or may be, repealed or revoked by the Bill. I shall confine my comments this evening to a subset of legislation which might have an impact on health and safety, and that is the law relating to health and safety at work. Obviously, I support the arguments so eloquently advanced by the noble Baronesses, but I should like to advance a different argument. It is a matter that has been raised in debates on the Bill a number of times, but in general terms: the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement. I should like to deal with that specifically in relation to health and safety at work.

I shall read to the Committee the relevant words of the trade and co-operation agreement, beginning with Article 386. It is only a few sentences; no one need fear that I shall keep them here for hours. Article 386.1 states:

“For the purposes of this Chapter, ‘labour and social levels of protection’ means the levels of protection provided overall in a Party’s law and standards in each of the following areas”.


It sets out a number of areas, of which paragraph (b) is

“occupational health and safety standards”.

Article 387.2 states:

“A Party shall not weaken or reduce, in a manner affecting trade or investment between the Parties, its labour and social levels of protection below the levels in place at the end of the transition period, including by failing to effectively enforce its law and standards.”


So the United Kingdom has signed up in a treaty to not weakening or reducing its occupational health and safety standards in a manner which might affect trade or investment. Bearing in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, said earlier this evening about the objective of the Bill being to reduce costs—one would add, in order to make British industry more competitive—it is clear that this article is engaged.

There is just one more article to which I draw attention, Article 399.5, which says:

“Each Party commits to implementing all the ILO Conventions that the United Kingdom and the Member States have respectively ratified and the different provisions of the European Social Charter that, as members of the Council of Europe, the Member States and the United Kingdom have respectively accepted”.


There, the commitment of the United Kingdom is the implementation of ILO conventions and European Social Charter provisions ratified by the UK. I can assist on what those are in relation to occupational health and safety; there are only three passages that I need to share with your Lordships. First, there is ILO Convention No. 187, the Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Convention 2006, which was ratified by the United Kingdom. Article 2 of it states:

“Each Member—


each member state, that is—

“which ratifies this Convention shall promote continuous improvement of occupational safety and health to prevent occupational injuries, diseases and deaths, by the development, in consultation with the most representative organizations of employers and workers, of a national policy, national system and national programme.”

Article 3 says:

“Each Member shall promote a safe and healthy working environment by formulating a national policy … Each Member shall promote and advance, at all relevant levels, the right of workers to a safe and healthy working environment … In formulating its national policy, each Member, in light of national conditions and practice and in consultation with the most representative organizations of employers and workers, shall promote basic principles such as assessing occupational risks or hazards; combating occupational risks or hazards at source; and developing a national preventative safety and health culture that includes information, consultation and training.”


Article 4 says:

“The national system for occupational safety and health shall include among others … laws and regulations, collective agreements where appropriate, and any other relevant instruments on occupational safety and health”.


The European Social Charter is even clearer. Article 3, which was specifically ratified by the United Kingdom, on

“The right to safe and healthy working conditions”,


states:

“With a view to ensuring the effective exercise of the right to safe and healthy working conditions, the Contracting Parties undertake … to issue safety and health regulations … to provide for the enforcement of such regulations by measures of supervision … to consult, as appropriate, employers’ and workers’ organisations on measures intended to improve industrial safety and health.”


It is quite clear that, if the current raft of provisions on health and safety at work, some of which I listed at Second Reading, is revoked or diminished, we will be in breach of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement. The only way we can avoid that is by the Government exempting health and safety at work in the same way as they propose to exempt the financial sector through Amendment 45. Will the Minister give that assurance?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

My Lords, we have had almost an hour on this topic.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Lord Hendy Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lisvane (CB)]

My Lords, I support every word just spoken by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, and earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher.

On the generality of the issues raised by this group of amendments, I say very gently to the noble Lord, Lord Frost, that he might like to consider whether his intervention earlier damaged the Government’s case rather more than assisting it. I have been involved, in one way or another, with the processes of this institution now for more than half a century. I have to say that his description of delegated legislation, and the implications of Parliament handing it, is not one I recognise.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, this Bill is objectionable both in form and in content. As to form, I cannot possibly improve on the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. Like her, I have been a member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and I absolutely support and uphold the principles that it has enunciated, in particular in relation to this Bill.

There is one point that I could add to that, which is that we have had discussions this morning about how long it would take to draft, introduce and debate statutory instruments to replace those EU-derived laws which are sought to be removed. Let me just point out that the sunset clause means that, if the Minister decides not to introduce a statutory instrument to preserve those rights, they will disappear without any debate whatever. They will just simply evaporate.

As to content, my concern is with workers’ rights. I have to declare that I have spent most of the past 45 years of practice at the Bar dealing with workers’ rights. I want to make a few very short points. First, all the labour law rights, workers’ rights, employment rights—call them what you will—that we are concerned with in the United Kingdom are UK law. Whatever their derivation, whatever their provenance, it is UK law that we are talking about. Let me remind the House that many of the laws that we have, not derived necessarily from the EU, also fulfil other international legal obligations deriving from the International Labour Organization or from the European Social Charter and the European Convention on Human Rights, which are both instruments of the Council of Europe and have nothing whatever to do with the EU.

For example, our unfair dismissal law satisfies ILO and European Social Charter obligations. The protection in Section 146 of the Trade Union Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, the protection for trade union activists against discrimination for trade union activity, has been moulded by both the ILO jurisprudence and a particular decision of the European Court of Human Rights interpreting Article 11 of the European convention—I refer to Wilson and Palmer v the United Kingdom. Likewise the protection of our right to strike fulfils clear obligations under ILO convention 87, Article 6.4 of the European Social Charter and Article 8 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. All these are treaties and particular provisions which have been specifically ratified by the United Kingdom.

When a lawyer is consulted by a worker or employer on the subject of employment rights because some problem, dispute or issue has arisen, the lawyer does not look to see what the provenance of the law is; the lawyer looks at what UK law has to say about the problem. Let me give the Committee a hypothetical example—I am sure I have done many of these cases in the past. A worker falls off scaffolding at height and is injured. They want to sue. They sue on the basis, of course, of clear, homespun English common law—the failure to provide a safe place of work and a safe system of work, part of UK common law since Wilsons and Clyde Coal v English in 1938—but they also rely on the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations and the Work at Height Regulations which originated from EU directives in what was known as “the six pack” in 1992.

Let me give the Committee one other example from my own experience. Six years ago, I represented the National Union of Mineworkers over the closure of the last deep mine pit in the United Kingdom at Kellingley. The dispute was over the compensation payable to the redundant miners. Of course, they were entitled to their redundancy pay and, indeed, an agreed enhancement. Their redundancy pay derived clearly from UK law. There is no EU input into redundancy payment, which has been part of our law since the Redundancy Payments Act 1965. However, they also claimed because they said—and were ultimately proved right—that there had been inadequate consultation with the union over the closure of that pit and the laying off of all those men. That derives from Section 188 of the Employment Rights Act, the provenance for which is EU law. Is the Minister going to tell us that that protection and that requirement for consultation before collective redundancy—the noble Lord, Lord Fox, referred to P&O Ferries, and that was the law that P&O accepted that it had broken in that case—is going to be repealed? Or perhaps it is simply to be a subject on which the Minister will not introduce any protective statutory instrument or further legislation but will simply sit on his hands and it will disappear on 31 December this year.

We are debating Amendment 1 at the moment, but Amendments 2, 17, 21, 23—which the noble Lord, Lord Fox, referred to—and 25, and Amendment 40 in the name of my noble friend Lord Collins, set out a raft of employment laws which those who tabled those amendments seek to protect. They are just a few of the employment laws which have a provenance from the EU. It might be recalled that, at Second Reading, I identified a whole raft of health and safety laws which fall into that category. There are others which have not so far been identified, one of which is, of course, the Section 188 to which I referred to a moment ago.

Those seeking to preserve specific rights, as the amendments this morning are seeking to do, are faced with a dilemma of trying to identify what rights need protection when faced with a blanket sunset clause which will remove the whole lot unless protection is given. As my noble friend Lady O’Grady and the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, have intimated, it should be incumbent on the Government to identify what is proposed to be repealed and what the justification for it might be. I call on the Minister to do that in his speech and tell us what the Government are going to get rid of. The fact is that those who voted for Brexit, for good reasons, no doubt, surely did not vote for the removal of all these rights in the workplace or the uncertainty about whether those rights would subsist after 31 December 2023.

There is one final matter before I sit down, which is a point alluded to by my noble friend Lady O’Grady. The trade and co-operation agreement that was ratified by the United Kingdom in 2021 includes two articles, Article 387 and Article 399, which require the United Kingdom to preserve certain rights guaranteed by international treaties which it has ratified and to implement them. There is an enforcement mechanism if the United Kingdom does not do those things. I tell the Committee that the European Parliament and the European TUC are already urging the European Commission to initiate that enforcement mechanism by reason of this very Bill that we are discussing today. It does not add to the reputation of the United Kingdom that we should already be breaching a treaty that we ratified only two years ago.