Employment Rights Bill

Lord Moynihan of Chelsea Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hutton of Furness (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 251A stands in my name. I draw the Committee’s attention to the interests I have disclosed in the register. I chair the operating company that runs London Luton Airport.

Much in the Bill is to be welcomed. It will deal with some of the manifest gaps in our framework of employment law and will strike a better balance of rights in the workplace. I strongly congratulate my noble friends on bringing this Bill forward. My amendment addresses the question of balance. Ministers have repeatedly emphasised the importance of balancing the need for better protections for workers and a simplified, less complex framework for industrial relations law with the legitimate and reasonable concerns of employers about flexibility and the regulatory costs of additional legislation. Being both pro business and pro worker is a laudable aim, but it will depend on this balance being properly struck.

I believe that Clause 71 as drafted does not strike the correct balance as it affects UK airlines because this clause directly, but probably inadvertently, brings into play in any future industrial action involving UK airlines the regulations concerning airline passenger compensation set out in what is known in the industry as UK261, which would impose potentially significant costs on airline operators in any future industrial dispute. This regulation gives passengers a right to compensation if a flight is cancelled fewer than 14 days before departure, unless there are, according to the regulations, extraordinary circumstances. Compensation can be anywhere between £110 and £520 per person, depending on the length of the flight, not the value of the ticket. Unions are required under the current law to give 14 days’ strike notice to any UK airline operator, allowing flights to be cancelled without incurring potentially enormous claims for compensation from passengers.

The regulations and the primary legislation are, in this context, extremely and entirely harmonious. Clause 71 would change the current careful balance and expose airlines to significant claims for compensation as in future if the Bill becomes law only 10 days’ notice of strike action would be required. An important ruling of the European Court of Justice in 2019 made it clear that strikes by an airline’s own staff are not to be considered extraordinary circumstances under UK261, so we have an obvious problem. I cannot believe that Ministers intended this outcome because, put simply, there is no balance here. Uniquely in this sector, the law would discriminate against airline operators.

My amendment proposes a solution to this. UK airline employees should continue to be required to provide 14 days’ notice of strike action. I do not believe that my amendment raises any fundamental issues of principle. Trade unions should, and must, have the freedom to take industrial action, but employers also have the reasonable expectation that the law will remain neutral and will not favour one side over the other. I am afraid that Clause 71 does precisely that as far as the airline sector is concerned. If my solution is not considered acceptable to my noble friend on the Front Bench, I hope that she will be able to tell me how she plans to deal with this situation.

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

My Lords, I am embarrassed to keep your Lordships even a few minutes more, but I stand to support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, and my noble friend Lord Jackson in his opposition to Clause 69 standing part, and to introduce my own opposition to Clause 66 standing part. Thus, I go further than the noble Lord Goddard, even though I very much support his words.

Why is Clause 65, in combination with Clause 66, so damaging? The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, was quite right to focus on the democratic legitimacy of the provisions of Clause 65, but there is a further, even more key, set of problems with these clauses. With noble Lords’ permission at this very late hour, for which I apologise, I will give a very brief review of the history.

Let us first look at days lost to strikes in the 1970s. In 1970, 10 million days were lost; in 1972, 24 million days were lost; and in 1979, 30 million days were lost during the winter of discontent. We consequently had the Thatcher reforms, which outlawed secondary action, banned strikes conducted for political reasons, regulated picketing, required secret ballots for strike action, and made trade unions legally accountable for actions taken in their name. This enabled unions to restore control and reduce the number of unofficial strikes, which had been a major source of the growth in strike activity in the 1960s and 1970s. The result, post-Thatcher through to the 2020s, was that, on average, less than half a million days a year were lost to strikes. Industrial peace was a direct consequence of those reforms. There were no more winters of discontent. This was enormously valuable, for example, for the Blair and Brown Governments of the noughties.

Let us note that the Government’s Bill seeks to eliminate very few of those specific Thatcher reforms. The amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, which we have just discussed, made an attempt at that; I am glad to hear the Government sensibly decline his invitation. However, even though the Government apparently see the sense of leaving most of the Thatcher reforms in place, they seem, in Clauses 65 and 66 in particular, to be looking to find other ways to unionise the private sector landscape.

If the Government succeed in that, there will be inevitable consequences for the UK’s economy. Last week, it was observed that unions are currently mostly confined to the public sector in the UK, but nobody asked why that was so. It is obviously because public sector workers have a monopoly of employment, so can enforce their will, and timid Governments seek to placate them so as to be able to appear, at least, to be in charge. What is the impact of this? They are multiple public sector strikes and excessive wage settlements in the public sector, the costs of which are now directly leading the Chancellor to her current dilemma of a runaway deficit, plus underserved public services such as social care and child welfare, and an impending debt crisis.

What will Clauses 65 and 66 collectively do to the union landscape in the UK? Clause 65 removes Section 226(2)(a)(iia) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, meaning that for the ballot to be valid, you no longer have any floor for the percentage of employees voting. Clause 66 alters subsection (2)(a)(iii) so that only a majority of those voting would be required for a strike to go forward. One businessman whom I spoke to just today was utterly startled by this news. He runs an SME employing 36 workers. If, say, one-third of them—12 people—vote, and only six of those 36 employees vote to strike, then you have a strike. It is not hard to find six out of 36 employees to vote for a strike.

However, is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, pointed out, democratic? Will the electorate’s heart warm to this quantitative gerrymandering? As I described just now, we all see the impact of unionisation in the public sector. What will happen in the private sector if this Bill, in the undemocratic manner that the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, has so rightly decried, passes?

I described last week in this Chamber some of the past, when unionisation destroyed industries such as the London docks, and the present, when the public is tormented by public sector strikes ranging from dustbins to doctors and from teachers to train drivers. This present-day public sector malaise, if it spreads to the private sector, will, as my noble friend Lord Hunt made clear, take us straight back to the 1970s and the winter of discontent.

If the Government are, sensibly, really not proposing to change much of the Margaret Thatcher reforms, which have brought industrial peace to the private sector at least, why is there any need to bring in these new anti-democratic changes? Do the Government really think that allowing strikes to go forward, with feasibly only 10% or even less of employees voting for the strike, will be seen by the public and indeed by the other 90% of the employees of that company as anything but outrageous and leading to even more strikes, even more outrageous wage settlements, even more yawning deficits, even, dare I say, a very large and this time real economic black hole?

If the Government proceed with these changes, the inevitable consequent industrial strife will be laid at their door. The Labour Party saw what happened to it in the 1979 election as a result of the winter of discontent. Why is it now seeking a similar fate in 2029? I urge the Government to withdraw Clause 66 and indeed Clause 65.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to the amendments that I have signed. I do not actually wish to add anything on Amendments 244 and 246 as what the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, said was straight to the point. I agree with him absolutely on those matters.

I just want to briefly turn to the Clause 71 stand part notice and Amendment 251A from the noble Lord, Lord Hutton of Furness. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hutton of Furness, explained it very eloquently. Why, when we are getting into this level of legislation, does it really matter about going from 14 days to 10 days? Actually, it does. There are wider consequences of some of these legal changes which need to be recognised in terms of the practicality of some of this legislation. It would be very helpful to hear from the Minister why that particular move is being made.

The other reason I oppose entirely Clause 71 standing part—to be more accurate, it is probably about subsection (1)(b)—is the categories and the NHS and trying to prepare for strikes. You never know exactly how many people will go on strike when you are running a hospital or other parts of the NHS. Having a clear sense of what capability you are still going to be able to run is critical for patient safety and for patients getting better.

I hope that the Government consider the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, when it comes to the airline industry. I hope Ministers will also carefully consider the NHS in their deliberations, because that genuinely can mean the difference between life and death or, to be less dramatic, whether a whole series of operations will need to be cancelled for many patients across the country. I genuinely believe, recognising that health unions are currently issuing ballot papers, that Ministers should be carefully considering what impact this new clause would have.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Goddard of Stockport, and my noble friends Lord Hutton of Furness and Lord Hendy for tabling amendments on the subject of industrial action ballot mandates, thresholds and notice. Despite the late hour, I recognise that there is significant interest here. I will try to do justice to all those amendments and to the opposition to certain clauses standing part of the Bill.

Before I go into the detail, I want to make it clear that a lot of what we are discussing relates to the repeal of the great majority of the Trade Union Act 2016, which was a clear manifesto commitment for this Government. I think it is worth framing why that is the context. This does, in a way, speak to a lot of what the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, mentioned. Far from supporting the economy, the strike legislation in the 2016 Act that we inherited from the then Opposition did not actually prevent strikes. In 2022, we lost more days to strikes than France. In 2023 and 2024, NHS strikes alone cost the taxpayer £1.7 billion.

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

The noble Lord and others keep referring to the 2016 Act, but the amendments that we have been addressing in this section are all amendments to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

With respect, there are definitely elements in the group of amendments we are talking about that relate to the 2016 Act. I was simply setting out the context for my remarks. Perhaps the noble Lord will let me make some progress, and, if he is still not satisfied towards the end of the speech, we can spend a bit more time on this.

As I was saying, 2.7 million working days were lost to strike action in 2023, up from 2.5 million in 2022, and these were the highest annual number of working days lost to strikes since 1989. Put frankly, the 2016 Act did not achieve its objective of reducing strikes—in fact, it made things worse.

Amendment 244, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, and Amendment 245, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, both seek, in different ways, to remove the repeal of the 50% industrial action ballot turnout threshold. The Bill as drafted repeals this threshold in its entirety, returning us to the situation pre 2016, where only a simple majority of members voting in favour of strike action was required for industrial action to be deemed lawful.

We want to create a positive and modern framework for trade union legislation that delivers productive, constructive engagement, respects the democratic mandate of unions and reduces bureaucratic hurdles. The date for repeal of the 50% threshold will be set out in regulations at a future date, with the intention that it is aligned with the establishment of e-balloting as an option for trade unions. In combination with the delivery of modern, secure workplace balloting, we hope that this will ensure that industrial action mandates will have demonstrably broad support.

I turn to the opposition to Clause 66 standing part. In answer to the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, this clause does indeed seek to amend Section 226 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act to reverse the change made by Section 3 of the Trade Union Act 2016. Section 226 is amended to omit subsections (2A) to (2F), thereby removing the requirement for industrial action ballots in six defined public services—health; fire services; education for those aged under 17; transport; decommissioning of nuclear installations, management of radioactive waste and spent fuel; and border security—to have the support of at least 40% of those entitled to vote for the industrial action in order to be valid.

Alongside Clause 65, which removes the turnout threshold, a trade union will need only a simple majority of those voting in the ballot to vote in favour of industrial action for the industrial action to be deemed lawful. This was the case prior to the Trade Union Act 2016. This clause is a key part of the Government’s agenda. Again, I want to be clear that this is part of our commitment to repeal the Trade Union Act 2016.

I turn to Amendment 246, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, and will speak to the opposition to Clause 69 standing part of the Bill. The noble Lord’s amendment seeks to retain the current six-month mandate period for industrial action following a successful ballot. The Government want to strike the right balance between ensuring that industrial action is based on a recent vote and reducing the need for re-ballots. Strike action is always a last resort; it is costly to workers as well as employers. For this reason, we consulted on the appropriate length of time before a trade union should re-ballot its members.

In that consultation, trade unions were very keen to have no need to re-ballot for a mandate at all. However, following the consultation, the Government have set the mandate period at 12 months, because the majority of industrial action concludes within that time. This will ensure the appropriate balance between reducing the costs of re-balloting and allowing mandates to continue for longer where they are likely to have continued members’ support, without prolonging disputes or permitting action to be called based on a more than year-old mandate. Retaining the six-month mandate period would prevent the Government delivering on their commitment substantively to repeal the Trade Union Act 2016.

I turn to the opposition to Clause 68 standing part from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. The purpose of this clause is to reduce the information that unions are required to include on a voting paper for industrial action, through repealing Section 5 of the Trade Union Act 2016, which introduced additional requirements into Section 229 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 5 of the 2016 Act required trade unions to include on the ballot paper a summary of the issues that are in dispute between the employer and the trade union; the type of industrial action that amounts to action short of a strike; and an indication of the time period during which it is expected that those specific types of action are to take place.

Repealing Section 5 will not remove all the information requirements. Under Section 229, the ballot paper will still require unions to ask their members on the ballot paper whether they support industrial action and which type of action they want to take part in, expressed in terms of whether it is strike action or action short of a strike. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, made an analogy with ballot papers not containing details such as the names of candidates or the nature of the election. I respectfully point out that there is a danger in that analogy; I do not think it is fair. After all, noble Lords opposite would not expect democratic elections for elected office to carry the kind of mandate threshold that they are insisting trade union ballots should have. Whether they want to make the analogy that democratic elections are like union ballots or not, there is a bit of a pick and mix going on—

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Moynihan of Chelsea Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

I conclude by saying that the net benefit to employees, I would argue, is minimal, but the cost to certainty and proportionality is high. The protective award is an important tool, but it must remain proportionate, targeted and fair. A 90-day cap already represents a significant financial consequence for non-compliance. Doubling it will not double the benefit; it will only double the risk.

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

My Lords, good evening. I rise in support of Amendments 141BA, 141C and 142B, and it is a pleasure to support the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on these amendments. I declare an interest as a businessman and as one who wishes to see the wheels of commerce and thus the economy moving smoothly and not unnecessarily clogged up.

As far as insolvency goes, this Bill presented an opportunity—one that I still urge the Government to grasp—to make insolvencies more efficient and less destructive of the economy. The law currently says that, in most cases where workers are to be made redundant, a 90-day consultation is required, regardless of insolvency or not. But, if a company is insolvent, consultation is necessarily spurious. The employees have lost their jobs, period, and the receivers have to move instantly, not wait 90 days to realise the assets. So, they do not wait 90 days and, because of this rule, they then break the law, because they are required to give 90 days. Two laws are in conflict with each other and one of them has to be broken. The more swiftly the assets of a failing organisation can be reorganised, the more likely it is that productive economic activity can be continued from these assets.

In the US, where these things are done much better, a study some time ago found that only 4% of assets were lost in a bankruptcy: 96% went on to be productive assets under a new organisation. Anyway, because the law has been broken, necessarily, in these cases, because the receivers are doing their duty to achieve a speedy liquidation, the lawyers move in.

The noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, who I am delighted to see is in his place, referred earlier to ambulance chasers. There are many lawyers in this House and every single one of them is, of course, honourable and valuable; but we are talking about no-win no-fee lawyers, who can be deeply pernicious in both practice and effect. These lawyers advise all affected employees that they have a case they can take to the employment tribunal because they have not been consulted, and that they will certainly win that case. These no-win no-fee lawyers refer to this case as “free money”: “Dear employee, you’ve got free money because you haven’t been consulted on a 90-day period”. These employees already get their redundancy money, their statutory sick pay, their holiday money and so forth. They get it all ahead of any other creditors. They are not disadvantaged.

This 90-day money that they get by going to the employment tribunal is three months’ bunce on top of everything else. I do not think that can have been intended, but it is certainly what the outcome has been. Who pays for this—because, as we know, there is no such thing as a free lunch? If the company was truly insolvent, there will not be enough money for everybody, so there will be losers when this money is paid to the employees: losers such as suppliers and HMRC, also known as the taxpayer, of course. And they will lose more as those workers get their 90 days’ pay.

I refer to one of many examples, Go-centric, a Glasgow-based call centre that suddenly went bankrupt on 19 December 2022, laying off around 600 employees just before Christmas. There is a whole story behind that that all of us can derogate. The receiver was faced with 600 employees who had to be laid off immediately. That is what receivers do, and they are honourable people running a very important economic activity for this economy. Enter the lawyers into this Go-centric situation, writing to redundant workers and advertising “free money”. That is what they actually wrote in the letters to employees, which the employees replied to. They went to the employment tribunal and the money was obtained for 200 workers who had already received all their statutorily due redundancy payments. I really do not think this can have been intended when the legislation was written, but so it was.

Now we have a wonderful opportunity in the Bill to rectify this, most likely unintended, clash of legislation by removing the 90-day consultation requirement in an insolvency, since, as we know, consultation is irrelevant, indeed impossible, in a liquidation. Have the Government wisely seized this opportunity? Have they rushed to validate their claims of fiscal prudence? They have not—far from it. Indeed, they have, bizarrely, proposed in the Bill to increase the 90 days to 180 days. A full six months of free money on top of statutory redundancy money, taking precedence over HMRC, suppliers and others. This all makes it more likely that their claims cannot be met, potentially precipitating further bankruptcies among suppliers. Noble Lords will have heard many pitiful stories of suppliers stiffed out of payments by a larger company going bankrupt and themselves then having to go bankrupt. This provision makes that more likely. There is no free 180-day lunch here.

We have a further problem, which may not have been considered by the Government in putting forward the Bill, which is that, if these payments fall short, which necessarily they will in many cases, the redundancy fund is called upon to pay moneys to workers. That is the redundancy fund that reports to HMRC, which reports to the Treasury. Have the Secretary of State and the Minister informed the Chancellor that they are legislating to increase the Treasury’s outgoings by a significant amount in future years, not to mention increasing the nation’s welfare bill, which the Government actually have a commitment to reduce? I suggest that the Government should speak to themselves and have a discussion about that.

The same concerns apply to the extension of the limit to 20 employees across an organisation to which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred, and to encompass distressed businesses—businesses that are in distress, which are calling for financial advice, but have not yet gone into immediate insolvency. An opportunity is being missed to sort all that out.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Moynihan of Chelsea Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 8th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Amendment 21 makes an important clarification to ensure that employers retain the ability to make genuine redundancies where there is a legitimate business need to do so. I hope the Minister will carefully consider the amendment, because it would ensure that the introduction of a new right to be offered guaranteed hours does not inadvertently create a chilling effect where employers fear that normal restructuring processes would expose them to allegations of unfairness simply because guaranteed hours had been agreed. Let me make absolutely clear that this amendment does not in any way undermine the provisions being introduced; we just need that clarification. In conclusion, the amendment strengthens the Bill by giving businesses greater confidence to participate fully and openly in the new framework without hesitation or defensive practices. I beg to move.

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome back the Minister and the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, for another day on this important Bill.

To some extent, we are thrown back to the previous day’s debate, when we talked so much about flexibility. These amendments are designed to try to give more flexibility to the poor business owner who sits up late at night after the working day is done, trying to figure out, “How am I going to win? How am I going to succeed? How am I going to keep going?” It is of particular poignancy when one looks at what is happening to the high street all over this country, with shop after shop, particularly small businesses, closing down.

In last week’s debate, there was an interesting comment about the minimum wage. I am afraid that my memory is not good enough, but a noble Lord said, “Well, they all said that the minimum wage would be a disaster, but here it is: a triumphant success”. I think we are united, as a House, in looking for economic growth—that is the big objective. Economic growth comes only from jobs and businesses growing, so a triumphant success would be that there was more employment and that employment did not drop down.

Both sides of this House went for this higher and higher minimum wage, so I am not making a partisan attack here, but the impact is unknowable because we do not know whether employment would have been higher or lower if we had had no minimum wage or a lower one. We cannot actually tell; it is one of those mathematical enigmas. In America, the states that have no minimum wage, or a lower one, have higher employment, and people move from one state to another to find employment in the states with higher growth—but here we literally cannot tell whether employment went up or down.

What we can tell—this is a very interesting point—is that the introduction of the minimum wage and the higher minimum wage led precisely to what we are debating today: zero-hours contracts. A businessperson may be thinking, “Shall I hire somebody?”, and they have three choices. One is, “Yes, I can afford this on the minimum wage”—and great: a new job is created. The second is that they say, “No, I can’t afford that”. Particularly with a gormless youth—I remember back to my own gormless youth, when I was almost unhireable by anybody—they will say, “No, I’m not going to do it. My business will be less profitable if I hire this person and have to pay the minimum wage”. The third is: “Well, can I hire them but in some other, more flexible way?”—and here comes this whole zero-hours thing. Everybody denigrates it, but we find that a lot of people who are hired on these contracts say it is what they wanted—but, God bless, we can have different ideological views on that. The point was that zero-hours contracts created flexibility, and that must by definition have led to higher employment and economic growth, the thing that we are all trying to accomplish.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I was not intending to speak in this group and I am torn between both sides. I have some cynicism about the Opposition’s attempt at recognising non-trade unions and staff associations. I entirely understand the point that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, has just made about employer-led staff clubs, which I have been, over the years, invited to join. While they have been very pleasurably good social forums, they are very different from trade unions.

However, I am afraid that there is a danger that we can romanticise what contemporary trade unionism is, based on the very fine history of 150 years of struggle. I do not actually think that trade unions at the moment should take for granted that workers will be loyal to them, because there have been far too many instances of trade unions not being fit for purpose. Indeed, there is often a huge gap between trade union leaders and trade union members. Many members are leaving unions or not joining them, and that is not always because of evil bosses in a kind of caricatured way.

At Second Reading, I made the point—and I am only repeating it here now—that, for example, the Darlington Nursing Union has been set up because the nursing unions have abandoned female members of staff who were nurses and who have been attacked by their HR departments and their employers for their political views in relation to gender and sex. As it happens, we now can appreciate that they were simply reiterating their right to privacy as biological women—something that the Supreme Court has now at least acknowledged is the law—but they have been harassed and bullied and so on, and the trade unions abandoned them.

I made a point about the Free Speech Union. I appreciate that it is not a trade union, and nobody, least of all me, is suggesting that the noble Lord, Lord Young, who is in his place, will become the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, of future negotiations. Despite the fact that that is an unlikely role for the noble Lord, Lord Young, the Free Speech Union has been forced into existence and has represented workers who have been done over by their employers when their trade unions have abandoned them. That is the point I am making.

The UCU is one example of a university union. I was a NATFHE rep for many years in the further education sector and I have watched in horror the way that that union has degenerated and sold out its members. So, for the record, I would prefer that we did not caricature each other in a way that does not represent the contemporary time. The trade unions today are not the trade unions of old. They could do with upping their game. Similarly, I do not think the trade unions are the evil enemy of employers, as is sometimes implied by people sitting closer to me on this side of the House.

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

My Lords, I would like to add to what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said. We are having a good debate and I very much hope to keep it friendly. What the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, said, was really rather flying pigs.

I, obviously not like most of the Committee, am old enough to remember the 1970s. I remember the destruction of the British automobile industry by the trade unions. London docks was destroyed by the trade unions. This led, through the 1970s, to the “winter of discontent”, which led to the necessary emergence of a Government under Margret Thatcher who sought to control the trade unions and do something about the destruction they were wreaking on the British economy. We all remember that; I am not fantasising about this. This 150-year story of the great things wrought by the trade unions is really difficult to let go by without saying something.

Right now, only 22% of workers in the UK belong to unions. Why is that? It is because of the destructive nature of those unions. Let us remember that, of that 22%, most are in the public sector. Public sector workers have a monopoly in the areas they occupy and in return are being rewarded by a Labour Government. We saw the sorts of rises, which were completely unjustifiable compared with what people in the private sector were earning, that the Labour Government awarded many public sector trade union workers when they came to power.

We saw how there is—I am not saying anything we do not all know—a wonderful relationship between the unions and the Labour Party. I saw a number—I do not stand here asserting it is true, but I saw it and it seems reasonable—that, since 2011 the trade unions have given £31 million to the Labour Party. Whether that is true or not, we know the figure is of that order. This is wonderful, but it increases the size of government, because of the deals the Labour Government have to make with these trade unions. It increases the cost and complexity of government, and it increases in general the cost of regulation to all employers.

All those things destroy the economic growth which, as the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, said earlier, we are all trying to achieve. I ask the Government please not to give us guff—I hope it is not unparliamentary to say that—about the positive effects of the trade unions. They are destructive.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I wonder whether we are having a discussion for 2025, or one that is deeply mired in history. I find myself in some difficulty listening to either side of this discussion. I say very strongly that trade unions have been, and are, very important, but I also hope that people who watched the annual conference of the National Education Union, all of whose officers have the support of the Socialist Workers Party, may ask why a union like that should have spent more time talking about Gaza than it did about school attendance. We cannot be entirely happy about the circumstances of all trade unions, and this Government are going to have to face those trade unions pressed from that way.

On the other hand, I deeply disagree with the attitude we have just heard about trade unions being destructive. Trade unions have been very constructive in many circumstances, and this is something we should recognise. My problem with the Bill, and my reason for coming to this debate to support my noble friend’s amendments, is related to what the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton—who opened the Back-Bench remarks—said about trade unions: that they were not forced on anyone. They were created by people coming together to work for better attitudes, better conditions and better pay for working in those circumstances.

If people want to do that but want to be independent and not subject to their employers—as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, fears—and if they do not want to be called a trade union, then we ought, in 2025, to give them the powers to make the same kinds of arrangements with employers as a trade union. If we do not do that, this is going to be the one area where this Government will say there shall be no competition or opportunity for people to make a different decision about their future.

We ought to give people that opportunity, and we ought to protect those people by making sure that it is given to them only if they are independent, pay for it themselves and have chosen that particular mechanism. I say to the Labour party Front Bench that none of us who work—as I still do, happily—right across the board with all kinds of companies can think of today’s industry and commerce as if it were like yesterday’s. There are new circumstances and new ways of doing things, and the Bill ought to recognise that. If all it does is solidify the past, we will have missed a great opportunity.