Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill

Lord Lea of Crondall Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 14th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for his productive engagement on the amendments in his name, as well as others for contributing to this important debate. Clearly, this issue matters to us all. I will start by exploring the intention behind the amendment. If it is to signal the importance of climate action, of course there is no disagreement between us on that. It is clearly an issue of the utmost strategic importance to this country, and that is reflected in the Climate Change Act, which marks the UK as the first major economy to pass laws to end our contribution to global warming by 2050. Our statutory obligations and ambition on this issue could not be clearer, and they do not need to be marked elsewhere. I do not believe that we should add to this legislation to signal our general intent. It is not appropriate for any provision to be added to a Bill unless it has an actual effect.

The alternative is a statutory duty that seeks to influence—and therefore constrain—ARIA’s activity in some way and, as drafted, the amendment would do so in a very sharp sense. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for his willingness to engage with the concerns that I put to him and explore alternative ways to achieve his objectives. I have raised these points with him directly, so for the benefit of others I will outline my position—with apologies to the noble Lord, who has heard all this before.

There are well-rehearsed arguments that I have put forward against a defined climate mission. I remind noble Lords that UKRI, through which the overwhelming majority of our public R&D funding is delivered, funds a full portfolio of projects focused on tackling climate change. Where there are specific research and innovation needs to support the Government’s strategic priorities in this area, UKRI delivers across: adaptation and resilience; clean energy; and sustainable industry, agriculture and transport. I think we are all aligned behind the idea that ARIA should complement, not duplicate, our existing capabilities. That is why this amendment is rightly presented now as a more general obligation. The excitement and support that ARIA has generated within the research community has been based on its different model of funding, with agility and risk appetite absolutely central to all the recommendations of how and why ARIA should be created.

ARIA should not be focusing on the scale-up and exploitation of known technologies, for climate change or indeed any other government priorities; noble Lords with expertise in this area will know well that the extent of its funding, at £800 million over five years, makes it completely unsuitable to play such a role. ARIA will contribute by focusing its programmes on the most ambitious objectives, and funding high-risk research and innovation to achieve them. When ARIA finds solutions to these hard problems or gathers learnings along the way, they will be adapted and applied to other fields in different contexts: that is where the benefits to our climate ambitions are likely to be felt.

Breakthroughs in materials science led to huge progress in what is possible in terms of battery storage or fusion. Those technologies are now critical to the energy transition, but much of the original research was not done with that goal in mind. Being prescriptive limits the scope to take completely novel approaches, as we hope and expect ARIA will do. Placing this obligation on ARIA requires us to answer the question: who will assess whether the radical breakthrough targeted by an ARIA programme might—in future, in some way—contribute to our climate goals?

The National Audit Office will assess the regularity of ARIA’s spending each year, which would include this addition to its funding. Is it well placed to make this assessment? That is not intended as any slight at all on the NAO—I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Morse, will be glad to hear that. However, I submit that even the researchers and innovators steeped in a technology cannot predict how it might evolve or be applied in the years to come. That is the nature of innovation and high-risk research. Essentially, it is unknowable. Adding this provision to the Bill asks us to make that essential assessment not only knowable but justiciable. Whoever performed the assessment of whether ARIA’s activities fell within the scope of this obligation would have their judgment subject to judicial review.

I strongly suggest that the actual effect of this amendment would be to push ARIA towards objectives where the assessment would be clear cut. It would disincentivise risk-taking, new approaches or exploring the application of technologies in unusual or unprecedented contexts. I submit that it would work against the grain of everything we are seeking to achieve with this organisation—

[Lord Lea of Crondall (Non-Afl)]

Is it not a fact that, although the Minister believes that we cannot make concrete commitments on method, we now have some very concrete commitments on outcomes? Glasgow is the best example of medium-term commitments. Unless we monitor those against the metric—the Minister will know that he used that word some months ago—how do we get around the following dilemma? We have concrete commitments on outcomes in a lot of areas but are now putting quite serious dilemmas—I am not saying it is nit-picking—before ourselves as to how we can make sure that we are on track to go where we are trying to get to.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his contribution. I am not 100% sure of the point that he is making. I agree with him that we have concrete commitments, but we have a well-defined track of a number of strategies heading towards those commitments. In the Bill we are talking about funnelling one small part of our R&D funding into a separate agency, while seeking to take novel, innovative approaches to research and development.

I have cautioned against placing this obligation in the Bill but that does not mean that it is unimportant for ARIA to have an awareness of these issues, as the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, articulated so forcefully. I am pleased that many noble Lords attended the briefing we held where my colleague George Freeman, the Minister for Science, Research and Innovation, discussed this. It is not plausible that any appropriate CEO candidate for ARIA would be ignorant of the opportunities connected to net zero within research and innovation. There is a similar situation with regard to Amendment 5 and the sustainable development goals, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.

As a result of the ongoing discussions that we have had on this issue during the passage of the Bill, I am able to commit now that, as an alternative, ARIA will evaluate itself against the pillar of the 2021-25 greening government commitments most relevant to this amendment on mitigating climate change by working towards achieving our net-zero environmental goal. This would be included within the framework document; ARIA would therefore be required to consider this objective from its very first cycle of reporting and evaluation.

I also agree that it is through its projects, and its funding, that ARIA’s greatest contribution to our net-zero objectives will be made. I can therefore also commit that ARIA would have regard to its projects contributing to our climate change targets and environmental goals. This is distinct from the sustainability reporting framework and should sit alongside it as a broader obligation, rather than being part of that evaluation process. That consideration would again be included in ARIA’s framework document. In my view, that is the appropriate place for such requirements, which relate to the effective governance of the organisation and its alignment to wider public sector objectives, as it can be more readily updated to reflect changing circumstances or priorities.

Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Bill

Lord Lea of Crondall Excerpts

Wednesday 10th November 2021 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

3: Clause 2, page 3, line 12, at end insert—
“(ba) after subsection (1) insert—“(1ZA) Where the company in question has been dissolved without becoming insolvent, the court, when considering a person’s conduct under subsection (1)(b), is to take into account that person’s conduct as a director of all previous dissolved or liquidated companies in which they have been a director, and may take account of evidence other than that provided by the Insolvency Service.””

[Lord Lea of Crondall (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I would love to have been a fly on the wall in the two departments determining the structure of this Bill, spatchcocking its elements, which now include one which is under the business and industry department. I understand how it has come about, but it has opened up a rather broad range of issues about directors’ disqualification. This is not an untimely moment to look at that. When we talk about pandemics, there has been a bit of a pandemic of directors learning new tricks in dealing with dissolving companies and coming back with another company, some tax advantages, and so on.

In addition to the removal of the legal loophole precluding creditors from holding former directors of dissolved companies to account, there is a similar and connected issue involving liquidating companies where creditors will be likely to be significantly out of pocket, as the insolvency practitioner—the liquidator—will almost certainly be unable to gather sufficient proceeds from the remaining assets of the company to pay the creditors in full. Creditors suffering financial loss often include HMRC itself. It is therefore logical that the court take into account the insolvency history, of both dissolved and liquidated companies, when deciding whether a director is disqualified. It follows from that —at least it is a very arguable point—that the court should not be reliant solely on evidence from a single dissolved company under investigation.

--- Later in debate ---

I think that also answers the noble Baroness, Lady Blake’s question about how more or other resources will be allocated. It is a matter for separate discussions with the Treasury. We will want to ensure that the resources made available to the Insolvency Service for these cases are adequate for investigating the most serious cases and resolving those issues. With those reassurances, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lea, will feel able to withdraw his amendment, and that the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, will not press hers.

[Lord Lea of Crondall (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for those responses. Before I withdraw the amendment, I would add that he dismissed a point I made without looking at the context in which I made it. The House of Commons Library briefing, Phoenix Trading and Liability of Directors, covers the starting up of

“a phoenix company following the liquidation of the original company”.

However, the briefing says:

“The Insolvency Service may also investigate a failed company (and the role of its directors) where there are concerns about either the trading practices of the company or the circumstances surrounding the failure of successive companies.”


The ability of the Insolvency Service to investigate

“the failure of successive companies”

in a liquidation scenario should, logically, be extended to investigations into successive dissolved companies. I am not quite sure whether the Minister responded to that point; maybe he would like to respond now.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I am happy to make it clear for the noble Lord again. The misconduct, or otherwise, of directors of previous companies can already be taken into consideration, and is in many ongoing cases. It can be considered by the court and the Secretary of State can submit further evidence, as can creditors themselves. I assure the noble Lord that evidence of previous misconduct or previous companies can always be taken into consideration.

[Lord Lea of Crondall (Non-Afl)]

On this problem of serial offending, as it were, and the limitation of the courts to look into it, I will take time to clarify exactly what issue has been reported. This will ensure there can be no misunderstanding on Report, where it will come out, as to where there is a problem at the moment, so that we are not talking at cross purposes.

This has been a useful opportunity to drill down into some of these matters. We will return to them on Report. I thank my noble friend for agreeing with me; we will both need to composite some of this material into a shorter amendment on Report. At the moment, I trust that the Minister and the department will reflect on the merits of what has been said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 3 withdrawn.

Employment Rights

Lord Lea of Crondall Excerpts

Thursday 10th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

We are considering all these matters. We keep these matters under review. We are committed to protecting and enhancing workers’ rights. As I said earlier, the Uber Supreme Court judgment was clear that those who qualify as workers, under existing employment law, are entitled to rights such as the minimum wage. All gig economy businesses should ensure that they are fulfilling their legal responsibilities. I think it is important to point out that the gig economy offers individuals flexibility and it can provide opportunities for those who may not be able to work in more conventional ways. Indeed, Government research has indicated that people mostly value the flexibility that it offers—56% of respondents said that. An individual’s entitlement to rights at work is determined by their employment status, whether employee, worker or self-employed, and gig economy workers can be classed under any of these, depending on their particular employment relationship.

[Lord Lea of Crondall (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, we are witnessing the rampant spread of precarious contracts, exemplified by fire and rehire. Has the aphorism that we are moving to a position where instead of a proletariat we have in its place a precariat. In the absence of legislation, where is the levelling-up to come from? In addition to stronger enforcement, which is indeed vital, the trade unions’ role itself is vital—more vital than ever. The Minister said he does not want too much legislation, but will he welcome the fact that we now have a growth in trade union membership for the fourth year running? It is hardly the time for proposing, in the words of Frances O’Grady of the TUC, to tie them up in red tape. Rather, should we not be facilitating the negotiation of pro-rata rights for workers’ representatives, this being the norm in the most successful European economies?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I bow to the noble Lord’s superior knowledge of the proletariat and the precariat, or whatever words he used. I do not have strong feelings about any potential growth in trade union membership. People are free to join a trade union if they wish. I would merely point out to the noble Lord that, of course, only a small minority of employees choose to join trade unions.

Net-Zero Carbon Emissions

Lord Lea of Crondall Excerpts

Wednesday 21st April 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Lea of Crondall (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, a central concern of my remarks will be related to the growing divergence that can be seen on this chart produced last June. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, and I expect that he will confirm there will be another chart in June 2021. There seems to be a divergence between the target for reduction graph and the actual outcome; one is going down, and the other one has now levelled off. We do not have a Gosplan—even if we did, it would not work—so the question is how we do it. We can add up the numbers on paper but it is more difficult in practice and, as a number of noble Lords have said, there are no longer any low-hanging fruit.

If I specify the coefficient of reduction of greenhouse gases as a coefficient of productivity growth, that is not output as such but what drives the economy forward—and we do not actually want to reduce productivity growth, do we? We want to increase it against the background of global competition and world market share. So how do we square the circle? It will not be done just by virtue signalling and lecturing people at work.

I come from the TUC, which I was with for 35 years. I was a member of the UK delegation at the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992 and on the original committee on sustainable development. I set up that committee in the TUC, and it has done some very useful work. But it is not straightforward, when you get down to brass tacks. I am 100% along the same lines as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, on the practical side; he was a trade union person in the same era as me. But why is there such a difference of opinion about where we are and where we should be going? There should be no need for a difference of opinion. We have all agreed the target. The Green Party, the Labour Party, the Conservative Party and the Lib Dems and so on have all agreed that is the line that we have to be on—but we are diverging from it. So although we cannot have a Gosplan, we need something that adds up to have a reasonable chance of not only turning back the divergence but getting back on to the line we need to be on.

The former Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, said yesterday that this subject has to be approached in “50 shades of green”—ha ha. He does know a thing about this and the politics of it. It is a way of saying that we cannot be too simplistic, but equally we have to make sure that we have a methodology to see how the greenhouse gas coefficient versus productivity curve can be brought nearer and then in line with the dotted line of aspiration and government policy. It has all been agreed.

I say once again to people on the green side of politics, in the broadest sense: please do not think that there is nothing we agree on, because this is something we have all agreed on. The issue is how to implement it. We are all on the same side and we have to find out what is needed to achieve it. This has to include some mathematics. I do not think that the Minister, given his political background, will be attracted to Gosplan any more than my side is, but what will the methodology be to see how the gap can be reversed and brought back into line? We do not want constant lecturing at each other. That would not work.

Is there some means by which we can get the breakdown everyone has asked for—the engineering industry, local government, you name it—to add up to some figure that will reduce the divergence? We need to be honest with people that that is the object of the exercise: we have to gradually reduce the divergence. I think 100% of people in this country ought to be able to agree that that is what we have to try to do. We cannot shut down the economy, et cetera. It is a difficult period for statistical measurement and finesse with Covid, but it is pretty obvious that that analysis is where we will wind up.

I will give one example from the engineering industry. In the world today, how we can remove plastic is, to some extent, an engineering issue—all those plastic bottles that we drink water from. There are water purification methods. Britain has industries, large and small, that can do water purification with new technology, which we are good at in some fields, to have a world market share in those contraptions you put on an older bottle so that the water is purified as you drink it. There is no doubt that that would save many zillions of tonnes of plastic. I am a bit interested in the industrial policy aspects of this. It might not be Gosplan, but those sorts of companies say that they find it very hard to figure out how to work the Government’s financial system as to what they can apply for in grants and so on.

Can the Minister say that he will make it his mission statement to go round and find how true what I have said is—that people are finding it very difficult to work the government schemes on finance for engineering projects such as this? He would have some degree of authority from No. 10 to do something about it, and I think this is something that everybody could applaud. If people say that the Government have not quite done what they said they would be able to do a year ago, at least the road map and political administrative methodology would be fit for purpose.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Lord Lea of Crondall Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 19th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lea of Crondall (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, like many Members I was horrified when I saw this Bill. I was, for many years, on an EU committee on benchmarking, and in those days people had to get used to the idea that if we get best practice in Europe, it is for the good of us all. The slogan we in the trade unions worked out in those days—Jacques Delors and all that—was something like “Europe is the league we are in”. Britain will go nowhere but backwards if we get out, and although we have accepted that there has been a referendum result, we are now going to make the situation far more adverse for our employment and investment prospects. Multinationals said, in a meeting I went to a couple of years ago, that their investment forecasts for Britain were going down even then, and now it is going down very much more than 50% for many industries.

It is so unrealistic to have the idea that we can complain about the 26 countries together wanting to stick with their standards, rather than them saying “Britain wants to change, in a negotiation between equals, so we will change all our standards”. I hear colleagues in this House suggest there is some rational motivation for this Bill, when I can only imagine it was from some late-night conversation in No. 10 Downing Street. That Conservative Party element wants to return to the heyday of Boris Johnson by doing something a bit more dashing, such as tearing up this aspect of the Good Friday agreement because some people have never liked it. Where the Irish question is concerned, the Good Friday agreement has of course been a great contributor to peace. It implies a certain degree of condominium between aspects of life in Northern Ireland and—with dotted lines to them—London and Dublin. If that is the issue lurking behind this it is, historically, such a ludicrous way for the tail to wag the dog.

If we go down this track now, there is a big question about whether we could have third-nation status within the WTO because part of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland—would need to have one foot in the joint arrangements with Dublin, under the Good Friday agreement, and another foot in the United Kingdom. Therefore, it is hard to think that we would be a normal third nation. Before the lorries queue up at Dover on 31 December, we should start to think how we are going to get away from this ridiculous apotheosis of Boris Johnson’s idea of the world and see what we can do. We need a framework agreement not just for the British Isles but one such as Switzerland has with the European Union, at the least. That is not my ideal, but we cannot simply commit hari-kari in the way we are going.

Trade Unions

Lord Lea of Crondall Excerpts

Thursday 18th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)]

My Lords, I am greatly indebted to my noble friend Lord Jordan for introducing this debate and to the contributions of other colleagues, including my noble friends Lord Morris and Lord Monks, and many other distinguished former colleagues in the TUC. The more the contributions have gone on, the more it has become apparent that we do not have a model of a company, in the private sector in this country, that accommodates where society needs to go. I will come back to that and ask the Minister some questions for consideration, but, in my first few minutes, I will first point out the nature of tripartism.

The ILO was invented 100 years ago. Anyone would think it was at the time of Ted Heath and then dumped at the time of Tony Blair or somebody else, but it was not; the ILO began in 1919 and is going strong in 2019. There is a microcosm of this and the dilemmas it faces in international and smaller companies, and the arrangements described by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, in her interesting contribution. How does the representation of the workforce fit in to these different models? Otherwise, we will see a continuing decline in labour’s share of national outcome and the atomisation of society, rather than a collective consciousness—what some socialists have called “false consciousness”—and a bitter, xenophobic society based on the appeal of nationalism. I do not need to say more about how far that fits in with the present state of public discourse in this country.

I was very interested when I listened to my noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen, giving his accolade to Ernest Bevin. I vividly remember an afternoon in 1976 in Bonn, when Helmut Schmidt met Jim Callaghan with, it so happens, Jack Jones, Alan Bullock and me. The Bullock committee was visiting Germany to study both the origins and workings of the codetermination system. He said, “Look, Helmut Schmidt, I want to show you something”. There was a note initialled by Ernest Bevin giving authority to Field Marshal Montgomery and Marshal Rokossovsky to set up the first coal and steel tripartite codetermination system. Of course, it was not done in the Soviet zone, but that was the nature of how different zones were run at that time.

German society has benefited. It is not without difficulties now, but it did benefit—and the world benefited—from that initiative. Ernest Bevin was, above all, the great innovator. Alan Bullock identified three periods of his life in his three volumes: first, the trade unions—the creation of the Transport and General Workers’ Union—then his vital role as Minister of Labour during the war and then as Foreign Secretary from 1945 to 1951.

That is perhaps a good place to go from, because in his bones Bevin believed that socialism was not just to do with the state—and I would say to my noble friend Lord Adonis that this is a debate about the role of the trade unions. It is important that the state gets its role right, but we are looking at the dilemma of how we do the jigsaw between voluntary action in the trade union or workers’ organisation, the role of the employers, who are in some respects part of great multinationals, as well as small clusters organised in collectives—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, expressed something along those lines; she will correct me if I am wrong. This is the cultural range that we are now trying to get our thinking around.

Back in 1995, when my noble friend Lord Morris was chairman of a group in the TUC, of which I was a secretary, we were looking to produce a report called I think Your Voice at Work. We were starting to present three tiers of representation—I am moving on to what we do about this, because we have been light on that in this debate, with respect to all noble Lords. First, think in tiers. Three tiers are an oversimplification, but give us something to think about. One is the individual right of representation. The second is an intermediate right of collective representation in various spheres. If you look at any classic text on trade unionism, you will find that its methods are varied; they are not just collective bargaining. The third has to link with the first, individual representation, and the second, information and consultation—or works councils, if you like. How do you fit this within the third one—collective bargaining—or even a fourth one such as board representation and so on?

Lower establishment size, with small bargaining units of 100, has produced a situation in which our model of 20 years ago is broken. You cannot make progress on trade union recognition with the Central Arbitration Committee, of which I was a member at one stage, looking at bargaining units of 100. It just does not go anywhere. So we need to think about a universal system of some sort of consultation body which can underpin the structure of board representation, because I have no doubt at all that we need a multistakeholder company.

None of this has been flavour of the month in Victoria Street for about 30 years—but Victoria Street has some contribution to make in putting a bit of intellectual firepower behind the rethink of where we are going. One immediate thing to think about is how the new 2% threshold on information and consultation bodies, replacing the 10% requirement, can lead to our being able in the next 12 months to have a big campaign so that we can succeed, with government support, in going in that particular direction, and then see how it fits in with a new structure of company law and organisation for stakeholder involvement.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)]

My Lords, I echo two of the tributes paid to former Members of the House. First, I pick up what the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, said about his late noble friend Baroness Turner. I sat opposite her far more years ago than I care to remember when I was a Social Security Minister in this House. I always admired her expertise and the good trade union negotiating skills that she brought to that side of things.

Secondly, and partly to clear his name, I refer to the late Bill Brett, whom the noble Lord, Lord Jordan, mentioned, as did the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who shared an office with him, and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, who referred to the fact that the late Lord Brett was a friend and neighbour of mine up in the north-west, where he lived for the last few years of his life. But the noble Lord then said that we had “an association”. I want to clear his name of any suggestion that there was a political association between him and myself, if that was implied. We were good friends and exchanged things across the Floor of the House, but the Chief Whips need not have worried any further than that. He was a great man in the international side of the labour movement.

We have had a very good debate, with a whole range of questions, which I will try to address in some part, and a whole series of challenges has been put before us. If I think again about what the noble Lords, Lord Whitty, Lord Adonis and Lord Lea, said, many of the challenges posed are for the union movement itself. I do not think they are for the Government to address, though I will make it clear that we welcome and value our relationship with the unions. We also value our relationship with the ILO, and I will make that clear as well.

We have had much history, going back over the last 100 years. This happens quite often in this House. For much of it, particularly the part of history familiar to most of us, the 1970s and 1980s—here I excuse the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, who is younger than many Members of this House—I suspect that there was a degree of rewriting, as often happens. After the passage of time, we all have our rather different views of those years. I certainly remember the 1970s and the 1980s. I remember voting for much of the trade union legislation at that time. Much of it—all of it—was very necessary, and I do not remember the incoming Labour Government repealing it in 1997. I almost wish that I had asked my noble friend Lord Tebbit to come along and take part in this debate, because it might have added to the jollity of the occasion. I will certainly pass on details of the debate to my noble friend, who I am sure will find opportunities in due course to take up the subject with those who have spoken.

More importantly, the debate has allowed us to consider the future of trade unions and wider industry representation. On behalf of the Government, I am pleased to recognise the important contribution that trade unions make to our society and to restate our commitment to continue working closely with the TUC—a commitment that I made in the debate we had a year ago to mark the 150th anniversary of the TUC, and which has been repeated by my right honourable friend Greg Clark and the Prime Minister. This year, as has been made clear on a number of occasions, we are marking the 100th anniversary of the ILO, founded at the end of the First World War, with its mission to end “injustice, hardship and privation” in the workplace.

The noble Lord, Lord Monks, asked what we thought of the ILO. I can only go back to the speech that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made recently at the ILO centenary conference in Switzerland. I will make that speech available to the noble Lord, so he can then read it in full, if he has not already done so. She said that,

“the ILO can look back with pride at what it has achieved”,

over the last century, by working,

“with employers, trade unions and governments”.

The ILO has been instrumental in achieving safer workplaces, fairer conditions and better pay; it has been 100 years of steady progress.

Looking to the future, the UK took an active part in negotiations on the ILO’s centenary declaration on the future of work, which sets out its priorities going forward, in the context of the changing world of work. It is right that we look at the future of work, as touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and others. The changes in technology and culture that we face are already transforming workplaces. That is why, some years ago, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister commissioned Matthew Taylor’s independent review of employment practices. In response to the review’s findings, we are delivering the biggest improvement in UK workers’ rights for 20 years, including ensuring that agency workers are not paid less than permanent staff, improving the enforcement of holiday pay and quadrupling the fines for employers who break the rules.

The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, quite rightly pressed me on the question of enforcement of labour standards. We recognise the importance of that, which is why we have increased resources for enforcement over recent years. Today, we spend some £33 million on enforcing the national minimum wage, regulating employment agencies, licensing to supply temporary labour in high-risk sectors, and pressing down on exploitation and modern slavery. I assure the noble Lord that we have committed to do more, including extending state enforcement of holiday pay for vulnerable workers and regulating umbrella companies. We are committed to providing adequate funding for enforcement. We understand the importance of that, although the noble Lord will have to wait for the spending review. We will also consider the need for a single enforcement body.

That brings me to the national minimum wage. It was introduced by the party opposite when it was in government and was improved by the coalition Government and this Government. With the national minimum wage, we are delivering an increase in average earnings of some £690 for a full-time worker, and some 1.8 million workers are expected to benefit from that in due course. There are changes: they are happening and we want to press on with them.

The future of work means that it is important that we invest today in the skills that our people will need for the future. In England, we have created millions of new, high-quality apprenticeships for school leavers and are launching new advanced technical qualifications for young people.

I am pleased that the Government were successful in ensuring that UK priorities, such as the eradication of modern slavery and creating more good jobs worldwide, were reflected in the ILO centenary declaration.

Before I turn to the future of trade unions and wider industry representation, it is important that I say a few words on the important role that trade unions can play in our economy and society. Trade unions have always represented their members and lobbied for wider changes in society. They have campaigned on issues such as modern slavery, tackling child poverty and equality for all. Over the past century, they have improved the working lives of their members, and long may this continue. I shall follow what the noble Lords, Lord Goddard and Lord McKenzie, said about health and safety in the workplace. Throughout the country, trade union health and safety representatives have made our workplaces safer. This has benefitted workers and the United Kingdom economy by reducing the number of accidents in the workplace. We now have an enviable safety record, of which we should all be proud. I thank the unions for their involvement in achieving that and I particularly pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Jordan, for his tireless work on safety issues.

Unions have played a large part in developing the skills of their members and those working in industry. Through Unionlearn, there are some 600 union learning centres, where trade union representatives help those with low literacy and numeracy. Unionlearn projects have also helped to recruit and support thousands of apprentices.

Obviously, the issue goes far wider. The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, spoke about the importance of addressing the skills we are lacking in the new digital era in which we live. I assure her that within government we are providing additional investment, particularly in maths and digital and technical education. We are providing more money and a new national training scheme to support people to reskill and move on. This is an area where we want to work closely with the TUC. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, that we will continue to have that close relationship with the TUC and will work with it, not just in training but in all matters, and listen to its advice and that of the wider union movement on a range of issues.

Although there have been and will continue to be disagreements, to go back to the Matthew Taylor review, I believe that the TUC has played a key role in helping us shape our good work plan. I hope it will continue to play a role as we bring it forward and bring parts of it into play.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

Does the Minister not acknowledge that I made a highly pertinent point—namely, that the future stakeholder model of the company is an alternative to the idea that a company is only the shareholders and that the workers are not members of the company? This debate is huge, and we must have it. Is the Minister not ready to say anything about that at the moment? It is absolutely central to the role of workers’ representatives in the future of the company.

[Lord Henley]

Dare I say to the noble Lord that I was in only the 13th minute of my speech; I think that I have 20 minutes. He was being a bit premature if he was asking whether I was going to sit down. I have a large bundle of answers for the noble Lord; I will try to get on to them but he will understand that I also want to respond to a number of other speakers. I might have to write to him, but I was not about to sit down. It might be that the rest of the House wanted me to but that is another matter.

I want to move on and say a word or two about the legislative position. First, the noble Lord, Lord Monks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, mentioned the Trade Union Act. I do not believe that it is about attacking workers’ rights or preventing strike action; that Act is about making sure that industrial action is taken only where there is clear support for it among union members. It therefore modernises the United Kingdom’s industrial relations framework to support better the effective approach to resolving industrial disputes.

For that reason, I want to say a word or two to my noble friend Lord Balfe about the e-balloting proposals and provide him with an assurance, since he put it to me and, indirectly, to my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe that they had been forgotten about. Recently, we held round-table discussions with experts, organisations and professionals—the TUC was also invited to the meeting—to discuss that matter further. We will reflect further on Sir Ken Knight’s recommendations and, again, once we have consulted the trade unions, we will issue a response in—dare I say it—due course.

We have heard many views on the future of trade unions and wider industry representation. We have also heard suggestions of what more the Government can do. I think it would be helpful if I set out our legislative position at the moment. Workers have the right to join a trade union; that right is protected under our trade union law. All union members have the right to participate in union activities; that includes members who are union officials. The right to be active in the affairs of a trade union is enhanced where the union is an independent trade union that has been recognised by the employer for collective bargaining purposes. Officials of such a union may seek time off work with pay to discharge certain union duties. Individual workers can enforce these rights at an employment tribunal. In effect, these rights amount to a right for the union, through its individual members and officials, to recruit and organise in the workplace.

Furthermore, I should add that the United Kingdom Government take the view that they should adopt a voluntarist approach to collective issues. Collective bargaining is largely a matter for individual employers, their employees and their trade unions. Most collective bargaining in this country takes place because employers have voluntarily agreed to recognise a trade union and to bargain with it. The Government do not believe that we should be in the business of forcing employers or their workers to enter into collective bargaining arrangements if they do not wish to do so. Instead, we prefer a voluntarist and democratic approach. However, where an employer refuses to recognise a trade union voluntarily, our legislation provides for a statutory recognition procedure. Unions that wish to obtain statutory recognition can apply to the Central Arbitration Committee, which has dealt with over 1,000 cases since the statutory procedure was brought in in 1999. My key point is that, if a majority of workers in a workplace want to organise and be represented by a trade union, they have the right, and the practical means, to secure trade union recognition. That is why the Government do not believe that primary legislation needs to change in this area at the moment.

As many noble Lords made clear, our economy and society are constantly changing, and unions need to adapt to maintain their relevance. The noble Lord, Lord Parekh, asked what trade unions were for. By taking the right approach, by following the TUC’s constructive engagement with employers and government, I have every confidence that the trade union movement can rise to this challenge. If unions can take this approach, I am sure that we will be celebrating their influence for another century to come.

Nissan in Sunderland

Lord Lea of Crondall Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My noble friend is absolutely right about the recent trade deal agreed between the EU and Japan, and that is why we in the UK should seek to emulate deals of that sort. We are not seeking no deal; we are trying to get a deal. Let us all come together and try to get that.

[Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)]

Can the Minister confirm that he is saying that the rules of origin question does not arise in the deal currently proposed by the Government?

[Lord Henley]

I am not sure that I quite followed the noble Lord.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

Can the noble Lord confirm that the origin rules problem does not arise in the present deal proposed by the Prime Minister?

[Lord Henley]

The origin rules problem is very detailed and complicated in terms of the percentage of any car that is manufactured on any particular site. If the noble Lord would like me to do so, I shall write to him in greater detail on that subject.

Good Work Plan

Lord Lea of Crondall Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Drake (Lab)]

My Lords, I too welcome the Government’s Statement on how they will implement the recommendations from the Taylor review as they open up the agenda on much-needed reforms to the labour market, particularly on the issue of one-sided flexibility where too much risk has been shifted on to the individual worker from the employer. The Government’s own Good Work Plan says:

“We will take firm action to tackle … where some businesses have transferred too much business risk to the individual, sometimes at the detriment of their financial security and personal wellbeing”.


I hope the Government will hold to that promise; people will watch closely how they honour it. There is strong evidence from both public and private sources on the levels of financial resilience that many workers lack, particularly in the face of income shocks. This lack of resilience is driven in part by a decline in the quality of the employment contract, whether that is revealed through variability in earnings, poor sick-pay provisions or ambiguous employment status. To begin to address financial resilience, one has to look at precisely what the Government have identified: the shift of risk on to the individual and the decline in the quality of the employment contract.

There are many questions I would like to ask but time does not allow. I refer to the part of the Statement that references Matthew Taylor’s call on the Government to improve access to justice, and I refer back again to the issue of tribunals. In their stated steps to improve the effectiveness of employment tribunals, have the Government decided to reintroduce fees for access to employment tribunals and employment appeal tribunals, so that the only matter being considered is how to reintroduce these fees, or are they still undecided on the reintroduction of fees? One has to bear in mind that, if workers cannot enforce their rights, these are rendered meaningless. We saw a staggering fall of 70% in claims brought to employment tribunals and a disproportionate impact of that fell on women, particularly low-paid and pregnant women.

The Statement also refers to the Government’s considering,

“the case for creating a new, single labour market enforcement agency”.

How would the remit of such an agency impact on the remit of ACAS and, in particular, on the ACAS role in conciliating on employment tribunal claims? When one reads what is intended for a new body, one can see an overlap with ACAS, so it would be useful to have some clarification. I reiterate what the noble Lord, Lord Fox, says that, notwithstanding the lateness of the hour, the reforms that could come out of this Statement from the Government, and the reach of those reforms, could be considerable, affecting many millions of people. When we get into the detail of the legislation, one can be sure that the numbers attending will be far higher than at this late hour.

[Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I will respond to the noble Baroness and I look forward then to responding to the noble Lord. That is the order in which we normally do these things. I welcome the positive approach that the noble Baroness took in her comments on the Statement by my right honourable friend, about where it is going and how it might develop. I am not sure that I can answer her questions in much more detail than I have already set out to the two speakers for the Opposition Front Benches. A lot of this is ongoing work. There is much to be done and there will be further consultation. I appreciate that at times noble Lords feel that there is almost too much consultation but this is the right way forward on this process, having had the Taylor review and consulted on it, and having taken certain things forward.

The noble Baroness started off by talking about the one-sided nature of some contracts. She and I probably come from a very different position in terms of how we think a Government should act. I am sure that she believes that the Government should act a great deal more than is the case with my rather hands-off approach. However, I agree with her that, particularly with employment contracts—although one has also seen it in the past with landlord and tenant contracts—there can be occasions for Governments to intervene to bring in a degree of equality between the two parties. This is the approach that my right honourable friend sets out in his Statement and in the general approach that he has taken to contracts.

The noble Baroness then asked about fees. I do not think that I can go much further than I did in what I said earlier to her noble friend. We are reviewing the fee strategy following the UNISON judgment and are looking at the balance between charging direct users and using taxpayer subsidy. There will be further thoughts in due course on how that will develop and I am sure that we will bring them to her attention.

Lastly, the noble Baroness commented on the new enforcement agency proposals and on the impact that they were likely to have on ACAS. If I could say anything more at the moment, I would, or I will write to the noble Baroness, but, again, I think that that will be ongoing work. I hope that she will be patient and look forward to the completion of that work. I will now sit down and wait for the noble Lord, Lord Lea, to make his intervention.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his overview. I would like to pick up the point made by my noble friend Lady Drake about the quality of employment contracts. My last few years at the TUC were dominated by an attempt to put flesh and bones on to the quality of the employment contract. This is an important study but there is a very shallow focus, and perhaps I may explain what I mean by that.

If you talk to anybody about the economy—indeed, if you talk to anybody in the Treasury—and you compare our economy with other leading economies across the channel, you will find that our productivity performance is a major source of deep concern. Of course, this is also a matter of statistics. A higher level of employment with a rate of economic growth of, say, 2%, will probably mean lower growth in productivity. The problem of low productivity is a statistical inversion.

The big question facing the country on this front is: what are we going to do about the rate of growth of productivity? Productivity is the basis of living standards. To say that there is a lack of productivity is another way of saying that there is a growth of inequality of outcomes in the British labour force and a growing disenchantment among young people. This might go back to a growing inequality of opportunity in education. It is no criticism of this report and the Government’s response to it to ask the Minister to reflect on the fact that there are some huge problems that are not within the scope of this report, and it is the productivity puzzle.

One of the recommendations—number 14, I think—is about an adjustment to the information and consultation regulations. This interests me, as many continental countries have much more statutory regulation in this field than we do. When the trade unions in this country had double or treble the membership they have now—which is partly to do with the new types of employment relationship—it was very difficult. Does the Minister recognise that although this report ticks a lot of the boxes set up by Taylor, and is a step forward—whether on recognition, zero-hours contract issues, recognition of the IC regulations and so on—it is not as if this country looks as if it has a happy future economically?

There is nothing here about works councils or anything remotely like that; that is a key example. A friend of mine went to Gothenburg in Sweden to visit the company he was going to take over, and was invited to a buffet lunch with the works council, whose leader said, “We have one question, Mr Struthers. If you take over our company, how will that improve our world market share?” He got home to Peterborough or wherever it was and reported this and people were astonished that, at a works council, a workers’ representative had asked that. It is almost inconceivable because the world market share is not brought within the purview of our workers or their representatives—that is true to this day. It is a million light years away. We are looking through the other end of the telescope when it comes to these sorts of questions—the fundamental questions facing Britain, its social inequalities, its morale and so on. That should be the wider template upon which this discussion goes forward.

[Lord Henley]

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention about the quality of employment contracts, the work he did 20 years ago when he was last at the TUC and his concerns about productivity, which he feels the Statement does not address. He connected those concerns about productivity with high employment, and I am grateful to him for stressing that we have high employment. I think there are now 32.48 million people in work, and that is something one can be very proud of. He is right to address productivity, but this Statement is not about productivity. I refer him back to the industrial strategy, which we published a year ago. He will remember our debate on it just under a year ago, on 6 or 7 January; I think that it was the first one we had when we came back from our Christmas Recess—let this year’s roll on. One of the things that my right honourable friend wanted to point to was the general problem that we have with productivity—to the extent that we can measure it, because it is a very difficult thing to measure. We accept that our productivity is not what it should be. In that industrial strategy we laid out a whole array of policies to address that point.

The noble Lord asked whether I would reflect on the problems of productivity. I give him an assurance and a guarantee that both myself and my right honourable friend—in fact the whole department and the whole Government, because that industrial strategy goes beyond the department and belongs to the Government —have concerns about productivity, and those concerns are addressed in that industrial strategy.

Airbus

Lord Lea of Crondall Excerpts

Tuesday 26th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, the noble Lord will not be surprised that I do not agree with him, and he is wrong to pose such threats to the young people who are working for Airbus, for example, and being trained and making progress. We have skills and talents and want to make sure that they can continue to be used in the world that we are moving into post Brexit.

[Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

My Lords, we have reached the end of the programme of Question Time. We now have a Private Notice Question, which I believe the noble Lord, Lord West, wishes to ask.

Trades Union Congress 150th Anniversary

Lord Lea of Crondall Excerpts

Thursday 14th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)]

My Lords, it gives me special pleasure to speak in support of this Motion. We are indebted to my noble friend Lady Prosser for initiating this timely debate to celebrate the TUC’s 150th anniversary. I am glad to see that my noble friend and long-term colleague Lord Monks, a former TUC general secretary, will be summing up. As has been said, his successor-but-one, Frances O’Grady, has risen to the challenging task and become highly respected in the wider community.

In 1968, I was four years into my first job at the TUC and played a modest role in the organisation of the TUC’s centenary in Manchester; it was 100 years since 1868, when the TUC was founded there. The first meeting was in a different building, but the centenary was in a well-known venue, Belle Vue. The climax of that celebration entailed a young member of staff being instructed to borrow a white shire cart-horse—as in Low’s famous cartoon—from one of Manchester’s breweries. The planned highlight of the proceedings was for the horse to be led round the amphitheatre to a standing ovation from the crowd of 5,000, with the added injunction from Mr Victor Feather, “Make sure, lad, that the ‘orse don’t misbehave”.

I want to make a point that has not been made. For 150 years, the TUC has been the single national trade union centre in Britain. There are not many of them in the world. Some statistician will tell me that there are three or four, but there are not many—and certainly none of them are significant. The TUC has been a national centre for all that time with voluntary affiliation—a national centre that is not white collar versus blue collar, Catholic versus Protestant or communist versus social democrat. It is the TUC and it is a very broad church. I remember a debate some years ago about whether we should accept an invitation to visit to Moscow. We had a long discussion that went round in circles. Somebody then said, “Well, I don’t see what we’re arguing about. We always accept an invitation to the Scottish TUC, so why shouldn’t we accept an invitation to go to Moscow?” So a broad church indeed.

In 1968, two other things happened that are worth a brief mention. First, it was the year of the publication of the royal commission report on trade unions, chaired by Lord Donovan. I was involved in the follow-up to that. In contrast to where we are now, I recall people saying not that the TUC and its unions did not lack self-confidence but that they were overconfident. The central issue then, largely in the private sector, was how far the shops stewards’ committees fitted into industrial or national agreements.

As my noble friend Lady Prosser said, when people say that trade unions are about usefulness, I am sure that everyone in the Chamber—and outside it, too—will accept that the need is undiminished and there are difficult practical challenges in the labour market. But the famous pendulum has swung too far. We are now in what we might call a phase of capitalism that is absurdly unbalanced, in terms of income distribution, takeovers and mergers being based only on share prices. The only stakeholders are probably algorithms—and this cannot last.

The gig economy has been mentioned. Today, that Marxist newspaper, the Financial Times, wrote a powerful editorial saying that the Supreme Court made a necessary decision yesterday when it ruled that someone who worked for Pimlico Plumbers was indeed a worker and that a contract of employment existed. A range of ideas to somehow undermine the labour market is developing, but that is not what people at work want. No one thinks that people like to be on a zero-hours contract; some people, such as students, may occasionally want them, but you cannot get a mortgage on a zero-hours contract. Like many other things, this requires legislation. I hope that the Minister in his reply will acknowledge that the Government will look at the merits of proposals for legislation to deal with some of these things now.

We have a fight-back in place. We have had two very useful reports in the past 10 days. One was by the TUC—Turning the Tide: Reviving Collective Bargaining and Voice at Work—which made some very interesting suggestions. The other was by the IPPR—How Stronger Unions Can Deliver Economic Justice—and made a range of proposals. The TUC believes that there is scope for doubling the coverage of collective bargaining in the private sector within five years, and describes this as challenging but achievable. We certainly have to present those challenges in concrete terms and see what it is needed. Voluntary collective bargaining remains the best way to do things. One reason is that we know that employers are always quick to complain about trade unions being overly powerful, but if they sign an agreement, we know that they can operate it. It is not an imposition because they as well as the trade union have signed it. That is so obvious but it is often overlooked as part of collective bargaining.

Another sharp contrast with the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and 1970s is the absence of a Ministry of Labour—a point that was picked up by the IPPR. That absence is virtually unique in the OECD. This gap has sent all the wrong signals to Whitehall about employment standards, training standards and the responsibilities of employers; because Whitehall does not have such a Ministry, it is not seen as the place to be in terms of subject matter in the hierarchies of Whitehall. That is a huge mistake that must be rectified.

I cannot go into detail about all these legislative proposals, but I will confirm what my noble friend Lord Sawyer said: the idea of representation on boards of directors is one whose time has come and is overdue. It would make sure that there is a voice in the boardroom that says it is absurd that people should keep score simply by saying, “I need 1.5 million”, and then somebody says, “Well, I’ve got 2.5 million”, and so it goes on. In some cases it is billions, not millions. This is a far cry indeed from the truism in the 1950s and 1960s, when I grew up, that the ideal is that we are all in this together and we are one happy family. No one thinks that is the model nowadays. It was always slightly dubious at the time, but it certainly is not what people even aspire to nowadays. Again, that has to change.

So I hope that we will be able to put together a Bill to cover some of the proposals that are being made. I ask the Minister: will he and the Government agree to look at the merits of proposals in this field as and when they are put forward in terms of legislation?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)]

My Lords, I echo other noble Lords in offering my thanks and congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, on introducing the debate, and the noble Lord, Lord Sawyer, in paying tribute to her union record. I also offer my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Monks, on being the oldest living former general secretary of the TUC—long may he continue to be so—and thank him for welcoming my noble friend Lord Hunt to these Benches. Perhaps I may deal with the complaint that has been made that there seems to be a lack of representation on these Benches. It is worth pointing out to the House that the debate was tabled only two days ago. It is often difficult, as I am sure that representatives of the trade union movement would acknowledge, to make people available at short notice. The noble Baroness had similar problems in that two of her speakers seem to have dropped out.

I do not complain about this, but much of the debate has been spent raising and addressing points that might have been best addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Monks, as a former general secretary—or perhaps we could pass them to Frances O’Grady, the current general secretary, as much of the debate has been directed at the problems that trade unions themselves face, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, when he talked about technological change and the need to get people into unions. The noble Lord, Lord Sawyer, also talked about problems of recruiting. I must say that those are not problems for the Government to address, but for the unions themselves to address.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

To avoid misunderstanding here, we are not asking the Government to do the job but to get rid of some of the obstacles. One example is the right of unions to go to a workplace to talk to representatives and others.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, recruiting is a problem for trade unions to address; I do not believe that there are the obstacles that the noble Lord suggests.

There has also been considerable reminiscence—again, I make no objection to this. We went back to 1968 and heard about the activities of the noble Lord, Lord Lea, who was involved in the 100th anniversary. Those were the years, I seem to remember, of In Place of Strife. We have had much trade union legislation since then, although In Place of Strife did not get as far as it might have. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, remembered his time as chief executive of the Met Office, negotiating with the unions there. I can add my own memories as a Defence Minister in the 1990s, chairing jointly with Jack Dromey—before he was an MP, when he was working for the unions—one of what used to be called the Whitley councils. I think it was the last one to be co-chaired by a Minister. I pay tribute to Jack Dromey for guiding me through that process in my short time there.

The debate has been useful. It gives us all, including the Government, a chance to express our appreciation of the important work that the Trades Union Congress does and to celebrate those 150 years. On behalf of the Government, I offer my congratulations to the TUC on its achievements and recognise the importance of its contribution. I restate our commitment to continue close working with the TUC and unions more generally.

My right honourable friend Greg Clark, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, was at the reception on 6 June to mark the 150th anniversary of the TUC. He said:

“It’s absolutely fantastic to be here this evening to celebrate 150 years of the TUC. While it’s true to say that—from the beginning—the TUC has been associated with ‘that other party’. It’s also true that the appreciation of what the TUC does transcends what side of the House we sit on or the colour of the membership card in our pocket”.


I echo the words of my right honourable friend on that occasion.

That first-ever Trades Union Congress was a historic moment. It brought together delegates representing nearly 120,000 workers to discuss issues, including working hours, apprentices and technical education. Those topics are just as relevant today, and so too, is the TUC. It has shaped our society over those 150 years. The TUC and union campaigning provided the impetus for the National Health Service. It drove the Equal Pay Act in the 1970s, and the introduction of the national minimum wage in the 1990s.

In 2007, the TUC said that smoking in public was a risk to workers’ health. Whatever our view on the ban on smoking in public, it was something we strived to do, so we can be grateful for that. The TUC’s arguments led to the subsequent smoking ban. In 2011, following a TUC campaign, agency workers gained the right to receive the same treatment as permanent staff carrying out the same work. The TUC, as many noble Lords said, works in international fora, and the training and assistance it provides to trade union organisations around the world has earned it international respect.

It is not just workers who have benefited from 150 years of the TUC. The Trades Union Congress has been essential to the democracy that we recognise today, particularly, as the noble Lords, Lord Lea and Lord Monks, made clear, through the founding of the Labour Party at the beginning of the last century. But democracy is not just about political parties and elections. Trade unions have represented their members and lobbied for wider changes in society. They have campaigned on other issues, such as equality for women and other groups, combating modern-day slavery or tackling child poverty—again showing how they can effect change to the benefit of us all.

Of course, since the beginning, the central focus for unions has been work and the workplace. Over the decades they have improved the working lives of their members, and—I want to make this clear—this Government hope to see that continue. I believe that unions have been most successful when they have engaged constructively with employers, the Government and other parties. For example, the success of our car industry has been built on good industrial relations. I am sure that many in this House will remember what it was like before.

Many employers and their representative bodies, such as the CBI, have also recognised the constructive role that unions have played. Throughout the country, trade union health and safety representatives have made our workplaces safer. Not only does this benefit workers, it contributes to our economy through reduced accidents. I believe that we now have an enviable safety record in which we should all take pride, and I want to thank the unions for their role in achieving that. They have also invested in people, working to develop the skills of their members.

Unionlearn, mentioned in a previous debate some years ago on this very subject, is an excellent example of this. It has helped to engage more than 50 trade unions in more than 700 workplaces. It has helped establish 600 union learning centres, where its representatives help those with low literacy and numeracy. Unionlearn projects have also helped recruit and support thousands of apprentices. For these reasons, the Government will continue to support Unionlearn with over £8 million pounds in the next two years.

Today, we continue to work closely with the TUC, and we listen to its advice on a range of issues. I want to thank the TUC, and in particular its current general secretary, Frances O’Grady, for the co-operative approach that it has shown over the years. We should congratulate the TUC on following the Conservative Party in electing its first female general secretary. Perhaps the Labour Party could follow suit in due course; there are lessons to be learned from both the TUC and the Conservative Party. I stress that we have engaged with Frances O’Grady. The noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, complains that there has been only one meeting between my right honourable friend and Ms O’Grady, but my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy met her as recently as April. My right honourable friend David Davis also met her in April, and there have been other meetings with Ministers over the course of this year.

I have to confess that I have not yet met her since I moved to that department, but I did meet her briefly in my time in the Home Office, in a previous incarnation in government, when she was assistant general secretary. I shall certainly pass on concerns that she would like—or noble Lords would prefer—another meeting with my right honourable friend. There might be slightly too many tanks parked on too many lawns at the moment, and other matters to attend to. However, we will certainly continue to engage with the TUC and the general secretary, and we are grateful for the chance to do that.

Obviously, there will continue to be disagreements, in the spirit of general debate. But in the spirit of this debate, I do not want at this stage to dwell on them. I shall move on to the TUC’s significant concerns about the changing nature of the world of employment. It made significant contributions to the Matthew Taylor review and supported the work of the Low Pay Commission. Again, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has highlighted the importance of the worker voice in the industrial strategy. The noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, regretted that there was no mention of the trade union side. We will continue to develop work on the Matthew Taylor report. As noble Lords will be aware, we made our first response to it in February, and we will continue to develop it over the course of the coming months.

Frances O’Grady has also attended the task force that has advised on the impact of Carillion’s insolvency on small firms and employees, making as always very useful and insightful contributions. Again, on behalf of my department, I thank the TUC and the wider union movement for their help in putting our industrial strategy into place.

I do not want to go over all the arguments, but I appreciate that not all noble Lords in this House are happy with the Trade Union Act 2016. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, mentioned it, as did noble Lords from the Labour Benches. I do not think that now would be the right time to rehearse all those arguments again, but it has ensured that, from now on, when strikes take place they will have the support of a reasonable proportion of the workforce. It is not right that public services are disrupted by strikes that have little support from the workforce. No doubt, there will be other opportunities and moments to discuss that and other changes in due course.

Today we have celebrated the achievements of the TUC and the wider movement. As Frances O’Grady has recently said, this anniversary is not just about the past. It was she who said that the unions themselves need to look to the future. Our economy and our society, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, made quite clear, are constantly changing, and unions—like the rest of us—will need to adapt in order to maintain relevance in the future. I have every confidence that the TUC will adapt to the future and that the cart-horse from the Low cartoon mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lea, when he went out to try to find one to take part in the 100th anniversary, will be able to adapt itself into whatever type of horse is necessary to deal with the future.

I think the TUC also has the right approach. Under Frances O’Grady, the first woman general secretary of that great movement—I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, is very pleased that the TUC has reached that stage—the TUC has led on constructive engagement with both employers and the Government, which I believe must be the way forward for the union movement as a whole. Again, I thank the noble Baroness for introducing this debate—I do not think I have to beg to move, so I will sit down at this stage.