Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Commons Reasons

Motion A

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2B to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2C.

2C: Because the Bill already contains adequate provision for consultation and parliamentary control of regulations made under it.

My Lords, in moving Motion A, with the leave of the House, I will speak also to Motions B and C.

The Bill returns to us once again from the other place. That House has been consistently very clear, for the second time now, that it is firm in its position on the remaining three amendments. When we were last here, this House asked the Commons to reconsider its position and, unsurprisingly, it has reached exactly the same conclusion as it did previously. Indeed, it has done so by greater majorities than before and, in some cases, by the greatest majority that we have so far seen on the Bill. Therefore, I propose Motions to accept the Commons position on the Bill and give way to the elected House.

We have discussed these amendments in detail throughout the Bill’s passage. The Government’s position remains that they cannot accept amendments which would delay the implementation of this much-needed legislation or, indeed, render it entirely inoperable. The Government have been clear in both Houses that they are willing to consider providing clarity on the nature of the “reasonable steps” which unions are expected to take to fulfil their obligations under the Bill. This is a significant issue, which I know a number of Members of this House have raised throughout the Bill’s passage. However, as yet, we have not had any indication that this would be widely supported.

Amendment 2D significantly expands on previous versions of Lords Amendment 2 in a way that will not, I believe, add to the effectiveness of the regulations. The Government have already undertaken public consultations on their intentions to bring forward minimum service levels for passenger rail services, ambulance services and fire and rescue services. We will bring forward regulations for approval in Parliament in due course. This is an entirely reasonable legislative approach enabling the Government to consider all relevant factors, including our international obligations, while at the same time ensuring that minimum service levels are introduced in good time.

At end insert “and do propose Amendment 2D in lieu—

2D: Page 3, line 31, at end insert— “(5) Minimum service regulations may only be made if— (a) the Secretary of State has published draft regulations; (b) the Secretary of State has consulted the International Labour Organisation and given due consideration to such advice as it has proffered; (c) the Secretary of State has conducted an impact assessment of the effect of the draft regulations on the services to which the draft regulations relate, addressing, in particular, the effect— (i) on the general public; (ii) on the conduct of these services; (iii) on the conduct and effectiveness of the exercise of the right to strike in those services; (d) the Secretary of State has conducted a consultation with the representatives of trade unions, employers and any other interested party on the draft regulations and on the matters to be addressed by the impact assessment and, in particular, on whether the draft regulations should or do sufficiently provide, so far as possible under section 234F(2)(a), for protection of workers who do not receive a work notice or fail to comply with it, and for the identification of the “reasonable steps” which a union must not fail to take under section 234E and those which it is reasonable for it not to take; (e) the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a report on any advice proffered under paragraph (b) and the consultation under paragraph (d); (f) the Secretary of State has placed before a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, convened for the purpose of reviewing them, the impact assessment under paragraph (c) and the report under paragraph (e) and the Joint Committee’s review has been published in a report to Parliament.””

My Lords, I am proposing an unusual but reasonable step in relation to this Bill. As noble Lords have heard in previous debates on the Bill, Labour is committed to repealing what we believe to be a very bad piece of legislation. Employers, unions, the devolved nations and service users have expressed opinions against the Bill. However, my argument today will focus on the consequences of this piece of legislation, which have not, I believe, been thought through or properly addressed either by the Government or in the impact assessments.

The consequence of exercising the human right to withdraw labour is now, as the Minister confirmed, the removal of protection against unfair dismissal. The consequence for a union complying with rigorous balloting requirements for an official dispute is now to lose its protection against action in tort. We sort of knew that this was coming because the Joint Committee on Human Rights concluded that the penalties for employees and unions who do not meet the Bill’s requirements are severe. It stated that they

“amount to a disproportionate interference with Article 11”

rights of the ECHR on assembly and association. Of course, as the committee said, the Minister responded on those human rights by saying that the Government rejected the committee’s findings and recommendations. They felt that this piece of legislation was compliant.

Since noble Lords considered this piece of legislation, last month, the ILO’s Conference Committee on the Application of Standards called on the United Kingdom Government to

“ensure that existing and prospective legislation is in conformity with the Convention”—

that is, Convention No. 87, which governs freedom of association and protection of the right to organise.

The committee has also issued a rare instruction for Ministers to seek technical assistance from ILO staff and report back on progress in September, in addition to seeking more consultation from unions and employers. This is precisely why I am arguing that your Lordships should consider sending this back. We want more and proper consultation. This is not simply about delaying the legislation, no matter what the Minister says; this is about having due regard to people’s human rights. The last time that the ILO intervened in this way was in 1995, when the committee called on the Government to improve consultation with social partners on legislation relevant to them.

My noble friend Lady O’Grady recently asked a Written Question on the steps that the Government intend to take following the ILO statement. The Answer stated:

“The Government believes that our trade union law complies with international conventions, including those of the International Labour Organisation (ILO).

Workers in the UK have the right to join a union and organise, this is rightly protected by law. They also have the ability to strike should they wish to. The Government believes however that taking strike action has to be balanced with the rights of others, including employers and members of the public.

We will consider the findings of the ILO report carefully and respond in due course”.

We have heard that term plenty of times in this Chamber. They should properly consult and engage with social partners in this country before putting in place a law full of unintended consequences.

Despite the repeated assurances that the Minister makes, this Bill is at variance with the experts, government employers and workers appointed in accordance with the ILO constitution to assess compliance with its conventions—a body which this Government are represented on, experts whom this Government supported the appointment of. That is why it is essential that the Government and the other place think again.

This amendment requires Ministers to do exactly what the ILO is requesting—undertake consultation when considering introducing regulations to implement minimum service levels. It sets conditions before minimum service level regulations can be considered. This includes an impact assessment, something that we all should expect, which will consider the impact on the public, the conduct of those services and the right to strike. It would require consultation with social partners, including on the protection of workers named in work notices. Today, the Minister confirmed that if someone does not comply with a notice, they will lose their protection and be sacked. This is a charter for dismissing people who take that legitimate right to take strike action. The amendment would require the relevant Secretary of State to consult with the ILO—the statement that I referred to earlier—and for a Joint Committee to consider the impact assessment and the report on consultation with social partners.

As I have heard said before in this Chamber, these steps should have been taken before this Bill was presented to Parliament. We had no looking through the consequences and developing a policy. Instead, it was, “Let’s have a skeleton Bill that people don’t understand the consequences of. Let’s put the legislation in place and consult afterwards”. We have not even had the results of the consultations on the sectors referred to in the Bill, and we are unlikely to have them until the autumn. We should not give this Government a blank cheque on such a fundamental human right which needs to be protected. I beg to move.