Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (Amendment) Order 2013

Lord Young of Norwood Green Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2013 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

To move, as an amendment to the above motion, at end to insert “but that this House regrets that the draft Order will have an adverse impact on employees in a situation which will fundamentally affect their livelihood and future career opportunities”.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

My Lords, we regard this as yet another ill-founded government proposal to attack workers’ rights. The Government’s own figures, over which we have had a little exchange, estimate that this change represents a net loss of £252 million—or, on the same page, £290 million; I am a bit baffled by the two different sets of figures on page 2 of the impact assessment. Similarly, page 3 of the impact assessment does not quite seem to grasp the nature of what is happening. It says, first, that there will be a,

“possible short-term increase in employment tribunal claims relating to consultation in redundancy situations”.

I can go along with that. It then says that there will be a,

“possible very small increase in job seeker’s allowance claims”.

Well, I do not know quite how that can be justified. That to me almost seems an anecdotal assessment rather than anything based on evidence. When I listen to the Minister say that in practice employees move to other jobs, I only wish that that were the case in 2013. Of course some will, but for many this is going to be a very challenging and difficult situation, with no guarantee that the employee will move to another job, given the current levels of unemployment, which are running at very high rates in various parts of the country. So I do not believe that that is a fair statement of the situation.

The stated purpose, as we heard the Minister say, is to bring this up to date and create a simple, understandable process that promotes quality consultation and will allow the parties to engage in consultation that is best suited to their circumstances, improve business flexibility to restructure effectively and reduce business burdens. “Flexibility” is the term used by the Government to justify the steady erosion of employee rights. From our perspective, it is part of a “hire and fire at will” philosophy and goes along with the myth that the UK’s employment laws are somehow ossified. However, according to the OECD, which I notice was quoted in the report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, the UK already has one of the most flexible labour markets in the world.

The Government’s aim, they say, is to simplify the system for employers. The Minister told us that the EU minimum requirement is 30 days, so I am unclear how a reduction to 45 days will necessarily simplify the situation or provide greater clarity. My question to the Minister is simple. It is the age-old question of, “What about the workers?”. Many of them have given their working lives to the company. They have served and worked loyally. They surely deserve maximum consideration and consultation. The Minister said that it was about survival of the companies. I take his mind back to the situation in 2008 when we had a lot of companies going on short time. There was a huge amount of co-operation, with workers accepting in that situation that they could move to a three-day week. They made sure that there was training involved and so on. The logic that less consultation will somehow be better eludes me. Workers fully understand the importance of the survival of companies, but they want a fair deal. This change does not give them that.

If there is a high degree of confusion about the current rules, the call for evidence highlighted that the lack of certainty and agreed understanding about the consultation process has driven negative behaviour by both employers and employee representatives. I would say that, given a fair opportunity, employee representatives will respond positively. This implies that there is a need for greater guidance for employers from BIS on the consultation process, not a change in the rules. I was interested to read on page 10 of the impact assessment:

“Some UK employers have argued that the current regime for collective redundancy consultation is harming their competitiveness on a global level. They state that it is much quicker to restructure in other, competitor, nations, both within the EU and beyond. However, further discussion in focus groups with employers suggests this is not a universal view, and that in fact many view the process as easier in the UK than the rest of the EU. Table 2 shows that, compared to the main competitor nations across Europe and globally, the UK has a much higher requirement for minimum periods before large-scale redundancies can take effect. However, the table does not tell the whole story. Some of the competitor nations listed (including France and Germany) rely on strict enforcement and monitoring regimes to ensure minimum standards of consultation where the UK relies on minimum periods before redundancies can take effect”.

That is an interesting and important qualification.

According to the Government, a significant number of respondents to the consultation called for a statutory code of practice in order to clarify the rules, but the Government rejected this out of hand. Why? Because it did not fit with their agenda. Can the Minister answer that question when he responds?

I heard what the Minister said about fixed-term contracts. I have less to quarrel with on that front because there is some genuine need for clarification there.

A further reason for the change given in the impact assessment is to,

“increase the likelihood of agreement between employers and employees’ representatives”,

and to,

“increase employee buy-in to the decision-making process”.

Again, however, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee is highly sceptical of this argument, stating in its report:

“It is not obvious from the evidence presented by BIS that the changes are likely either to promote agreement between employers and employees’ representatives, or to gain greater employee support for the process”.

It concludes that the change requires special attention from Parliament on the grounds that:

“The evidence provided by BIS does little to inspire confidence that these other objectives will be achieved”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

Consultation was just one part of the process, but this policy has been thought out—we believe, and we would say this, wouldn’t we? —extremely carefully. Having taken a lot of conversation wider than this particular consultation, we believe that this is the right way forward. I would remind your Lordships that we have also consulted businesses. In terms of the time, I repeat myself by saying that we have gone from the 90 down to the 45—it is not 90 to 30—because we have actually spoken to businesses and other organisations to get the information that we need.

I would like to conclude by saying that between 50% and 80% of employees subject to collective consultation are not actually made redundant. All are kept in suspense as they wait to find out who stays and who goes. If people do become unemployed, most leave unemployment quickly. Of those making a new jobseeker’s allowance claim, over 50% have left the jobseeker’s allowance within three months, and over 70% have left within six months.

Finally, union respondents did not provide any proof that reducing the minimum period would cause problems. Where anecdotal evidence was provided, it suggested that meaningful consultation can help reduce the number of redundancies, but these are rarely significant in number. I commend the order to the House.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response, even if I did not agree with the tenor of it, or the basis on which they have decided on this legislation. I thank all my noble friends and colleagues who have participated in this debate. They have raised a number of interesting points. As I think my noble friend Lord Monks made clear, this is not going to help industrial partnership or improve productivity. I do not think that the Minister has addressed the problem that the noble Lord, Lord Monks, drew to his attention about the question of establishments and where there is still large-scale redundancy taking place in the organisation as a whole.

My noble friend Lady Dean raised a couple of important points about the fact that the conditions, certainly for senior management, are often vastly different from those for the workforce as a whole. They have a significantly longer period to find alternative employment. As she rightly pointed out, this is taking rights away from workers, and although we heard a lot of talk from the Minister about employers and consultation, he did not really address the point about the bad employers who do not engage in any meaningful consultation.

My noble friend Lord Watson made a point that perhaps I did not stress enough when I pointed out—in response to the Minister, who said that workers would quickly find alternative employment—that we only wish that were the case. I think that he acknowledged in his reply that it would not necessarily be as easy as that. My noble friend Lord Watson pointed out that while they may move to alternative employment, it is often for significantly less pay and inferior conditions. It is not a particularly good climate at the moment to seek alternative employment.

My noble friend Lord Lea has pointed out that the cost of this falls on the workers. It means that their pay for those 45 weeks will be significantly reduced. His point about the importance of the machinery of consultation, which is much more evident in other countries in Europe, is an exceedingly valid one. The Minister talked about the importance of companies acting quickly. I would say to him that it is not about them acting quickly; it is about them having a strategic plan for their business that ensures that it survives. As we have seen so often in recent large-scale redundancies in the high street, they have not actually had a survival plan; HMV is the example that springs to mind. It is not the workers’ fault in these situations; it is not that they have not been prepared to contribute to the company in terms of ideas or loyal working—that is not the cause of the problem.

The Minister says that those made redundant will be a minority, and that crowds out the interests of the remaining workforce. Those who remain in employment are one thing; our sympathies are more with those who will have to look for alternative employment. We do not think it is a question of people being kept in suspense; it is a question of being able to have meaningful consultation and explore the alternatives that my noble friend Lord Monks referred to, whether it is retraining, redeployment or restructuring of the company. When it comes to certainty, there is one thing you gain in these situations: the certainty that significant numbers are going to be made redundant, and the only uncertainty is whether you will be able to get significant alternative employment.

As a number of my noble friends have said, this proposal by the Government is not going to improve the overall situation, in terms of either productivity in companies or stimulating growth of employment. Nevertheless, although I am not by any means satisfied by the Government’s response, and I hope that the Minister is going to reply in detail to some of the questions, I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment to the Motion withdrawn.