Employment Rights Bill

Lord Moynihan of Chelsea Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 27th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as a businessman and investor. I welcome the excellent maiden speeches of my hereditarily noble friend Lord Young of Acton; by the poised and articulate Baroness, my noble friend Lady Cash, and by the two other noble Baroness. I also apologise that, with the Minister’s kind agreement, I may have to leave before the winding up.

Good economic policy brings prosperity, security and jobs. The Government say economic growth is their number one priority. Does this Bill promote growth, which needs a low-regulation, low-tax, small government, free market environment? No, it does not. When this Government came to power, they succumbed to the time-honoured temptation to focus on demand, not least by giving selected supporters above-inflation pay raises. Demand is an attractive policy, because it pursues the covetable votes of the UK’s over-50 million adult consumers. Supply—which a Government seeking growth should have more properly focused on—attracts just the 5 million votes or so from employers and sole proprietors.

However, demand stimulation quickly runs up against the problem of funding new spend with available tax receipts. Tax hikes are made with the hope that tax will go up above its current 36% of GDP—but it obstinately has not. Government expenditures and regulation are going up, but so too are departures from this country, including entrepreneurs, high earners and achievers, and young strivers—all those current and future wealth creators who would have stayed and grown the economy, had a supply-side approach been taken.

Even though the Chancellor U-turned yesterday, the OBR cut its 2% GDP growth projection to 1%. That is still too optimistic, yet even 1% GDP growth means about zero growth per capita. There was an unmentioned elephant yesterday: this very Bill. Here is what the OBR said about it:

“In this forecast, we have not incorporated any impact of the Government’s Plan to Make Work Pay”.


It then goes on to say that the Bill’s impact on GDP should be negative, which drops its growth projection to below 1%.

After last year’s Budget, the economy slowed to a halt, just as we had warned it would. Now every piece of this vast new Bill seems designed directly to further ruin the economy: banning zero-hours contracts; letting the union fox into the SME henhouse; giving the right to request flexible working; and introducing no waiting periods for statutory sick pay, parental and bereavement leave and unfair dismissal. Each claims virtue but, in reality, damages economic growth and jobs.

What will be the economic consequences of Labour’s decisions? They will include: higher unemployment, especially among the youth; lower general prosperity; and many individual recessions as GDP per capita declines—an alarming prospect for the country’s future fiscal stability. Yes, it may feel good to have a heart, but it is more important to have a head.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Moynihan of Chelsea Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 1 from the noble Lords, Lord Fox, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt. Paragraph (c) would

“make provisions about pay and conditions in certain sectors”.

My noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston made some very good points about the tech sector—those entrepreneurs and businesses of the future. It was very important to hear what she had to say. However, I wish to stand up for the hospitality sector. Do any of the Members opposite know what it is like to run a hospitality sector business and the challenges of employing people to cater and serve in that sector?

UKHospitality recently launched the social productivity index, which shows that the hospitality sector is also a key driver in socially productive growth, not only contributing to economic expansion but fostering social mobility and regional development. With 57% of the workforce working 30 hours or fewer per week, the sector offers flexible employment options that make it particularly accessible to students, carers and parents—I do not know how many noble Lords in this Chamber today at some stage in their career worked in hospitality, but it is an excellent first opportunity to get into the world of work.

Unfortunately, in broad terms, the proposed changes in the latest set of amendments to the Bill seem destined to result in a framework of requirements that are more likely to hinder than to promote growth in the hospitality sector. In particular, without further addressing the concerns of businesses and considering alternative options, it is felt that the Bill is likely to lead to reductions in staff recruitment, the rate of wage growth and the level of investment. The Bill looks likely to hinder hospitality businesses and restrict growth. It seems to assume that all employers are bad actors with regards to their dealings with their staff. This is patently not the case for the majority of businesses, which recognise the need to recruit and retain staff and ensure they are supported and secure at work.

There still appears to be a disregard for seasonal business models and unpredictable trading in sectors such as pubs and wider hospitality businesses, which are required to adapt quickly to changes in trade patterns determined, for example, by weather or other events outside their control. A reduction in businesses’ ability to respond quickly and proactively to changing demand will undoubtedly result in higher operating costs. That will naturally need to be met by either increasing prices, reducing other staff costs or reducing investment.

These impacts are compounded by the Budget announcements on employer NICs and national living wage rates. Spiralling employment costs will be exacerbated by the additional cost and administrative burdens that the Bill will layer on top, all impacting investment and growth. The unintended consequences of this Bill are slower wage growth and recruitment. I am sure the Minister does not intend that to be the case. Can she reassure the Committee that it will not be the case if the Bill goes ahead as it is?

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

My Lords, I support this important amendment and endorse the serious concerns just now expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral. I declare my interests as a businessman, an entrepreneur and an investor.

The noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway, questioned the need for a stated purpose for the Bill. I am not sure what the logic is there: the most likely reason for a Bill having no purpose is a lack of clarity by its sponsors as to what they are trying to achieve. The noble Baroness, Lady Carberry of Muswell Hill, complains that the list stated in the amendment is non-exhaustive, which I agree with, and then somehow jumps to the conclusion that no list at all would be preferable. Again, I am afraid the logic of that escapes me.

I am far less experienced than my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, but I feel that there is always an obvious advantage in having a purpose clause. In the case of this Bill, I am sure the Government must agree that those who will face the task of interpreting the meaning of the Bill in the future should be given as much clarity as possible, through a purpose clause, as to why the Bill was passed and what its purpose was. Courts in the future will far prefer to have a lucid statement of what the new law sets out to accomplish, rather than being given too wide latitude and freedom to interpret the Bill in this way or that. So I commend the overall objective of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and hope that the amendment, or similar, will form part of the eventual Bill.

This very lengthy Bill will, if passed without a purposes section, be more open to abuses of the extensive powers it contains. This amendment would put a few appropriate, albeit modest, restraints on the ability of a Government to go too far in applying these powers. To be clear, this proposed purpose clause from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, is just a start and, for me, not completely satisfactory by any means. The list is indeed not exhaustive. In addition, the additional amendments would burden companies with yet another compliance code of conduct, which will serve to send sensible non-executives screaming from the room and possibly off to Dubai. We have to let boards focus on managing their businesses, serving their customers and making sure it is a well-run business, not having to implement new compliance code after new compliance code that will only ever be observed with lip service.

On this point of a non-exhaustive list, I wish to add to the list of purposes of the Bill, in addition to the wording that my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe suggested, an additional purpose of supporting, improving and not reducing flexibility in employment relationships. We will move on to the issue of flexibility in the next group of amendments, so I will not expand on that point here, but I recommend the addition of that purpose, as well as the wording proposed by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, to the list in Amendment 1.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I have never been much enamoured with purpose clauses, although they are a convenient way of having an early debate on the principles of a Bill before we get stuck into the detail. Indeed, we can see that the opportunity and attraction of another Second Reading debate is irresistible to noble Lords. Part of the reason is probably that when we have Second Readings nowadays, at most about four minutes are allowed, but when we get into Committee we have 10 minutes, which is a wonderful way of proceeding.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, has tried to encompass the Government’s aims for the Bill in his wording of Amendment 1, but in doing so he has not covered the whole content of the Bill. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, on that, although we probably will not agree on much else during the passage of the Bill. For example, Clause 75 repeals the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, which we knew the party opposite hated when we enacted it. That Act empowered employers to set minimum service levels in a few defined public services so that service users, such as NHS patients and commuters, did not have to suffer the massive disruption that we have seen inflicted by the unions that are active in the public sector. Repeal of the 2023 Act takes away the power to protect public service users, and does nothing that fits within the purposes put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in his Amendment 1. Does that mean that Clause 75 should not be in the Bill? If not, what is the purpose of a purpose clause? Perhaps the noble Lord can answer that.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea]

2: Clause 1, page 2, line 8, leave out from beginning to end of line 11 on page 4

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 2. I apologise to noble Lords if anything in my moving of this amendment is maladroit or otherwise at fault: it is the first time I have moved an amendment, let alone a group of amendments.

Why am I suggesting that new Section 27BA be removed in its entirety? The primary reason is the onerous inflexibility that it imposes on employers, the creators of jobs. The Bill as it stands, in theory, works even for those key groups who, as has been reported widely, much prefer flexibility in their employment arrangements—to take just a few examples: students, working mothers, part-time creatives and casual workers of all stripes. It is acceptable to them because they do not have to accept the guaranteed hours that the employer is required to offer them. To them and other groups of workers, some of whom may indeed prefer to be offered guaranteed hours, the employers will be required to offer those guarantees, but, once the offer is made, the employees can accept them or not. Thus, this new section creates considerable additional flexibility on the demand side. Many people looking for jobs will find those jobs more attractive.

On the supply side, however, flexibility is enormously reduced, to be replaced by stark uncertainty for all employers, particularly for sectors such as the NHS, hospitality, retail, care work, the gig economy, delivery driving, Christmas work, warehouse work and so many more. The absolute importance of flexibility to the employer can hardly be better illustrated than in the reports on the Guido Fawkes website as to how unions and the Labour Party itself have happily offered zero-hour contracts in the past.

At Second Reading, I stated that this Bill in general will kill business across the country, serving to shrink rather than grow the economy. This unfortunate section is just one part of that but an important one. In general, as I have just discussed, on the demand side, the removal of significant elements of flexibility creates distortions in the employment market, leading to employers, in many cases, being far more reluctant to offer employment. In consequence, the level of employment will fall, not increase. For smaller businesses, just creating the offers required by this section in the first place will involve onerous costs in time and money, making the employer highly reluctant even to start the process of seeking new employees. Some of the subsections in the new section raise the likelihood, in real life, of employers doing their level best to covertly figure out which employees will be flexible and which will seek inflexible, guaranteed arrangements, and, having come to a conclusion, hiring the one who wants flexibility and not the one who does not. That destroys the whole intent of this clause. The Government might denigrate such behaviour by a small business employer, but few in the Government have ever run a business.

A further problem is that the new section envisages the employer having to go to all the lengths of creating the guaranteed-hours offer, and to present it to the candidate employee, without having any idea whether the candidate will take the offer. This imposes considerable friction and inefficiency on the economy and more unnecessary costs on the poor benighted employer.

Interestingly, I read through the several pages of this new section—quite possibly ineptly—but I cannot find anything about what happens in a hypothetical situation where an employer presents the required offer then says to the prospective employee, “Will you be wanting these guaranteed hours?” and, if the prospective employer says yes, the employer then does not make an offer of employment to them. It seems odd that I cannot find that; maybe it is there somewhere. In my view, if the ability of the employer to renege in that way after having been forced to make that offer is in fact there in the Bill, it would be a good thing. The Government may or may not agree, but, even if I were right in saying that this loophole existed in the current drafting and the Government, having been alerted to it, were to choose to close that loophole, it would just drive similar behaviour by employers underground.

The Bill is driven in great part by a belief in what is “fair” to employees, and so forth. I have seen in my short time here that “fairness” is often used in this Chamber; “outcomes” is not used so much. Whatever the Government’s view may be as to the crucial importance of fairness, with the best will in the world, the government drafters who focused on fairness will not have been able to bring to the issue anywhere near the level of seriousness as to outcomes with which a business owner facing survival or destruction for their business will view this matter.

This new section is just one component of an extensive and intrusive Bill that will, if implemented, see the UK’s economy further driven into the ground, with more and more parts of that economy and key players in it either becoming economically inactive or, as we are seeing on a daily basis, leaving the country. On Report, I imagine my party will oppose the entire Bill, but in the meantime, I state that it can be significantly enhanced by removing this new section in its entirety. I beg to move.

[Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise (Con)]

My Lords, I rise in support of Amendment 8 in my name. I declare my interests as stated on the register, in particular my role as chief executive of Next plc, the job I have held for 24 years, which makes me the UK’s longest-serving FTSE 100 chief executive. I add that Next employs over 25,000 part-time employees—and, I hasten to add, it does not use zero-hours contracts.

I start by assuring the Minister that I have sympathy with the intentions behind this section of the Bill. Zero-hours contracts can leave employees feeling obligated to accept hours from employers, who can feel no obligation to provide work. I commend the Government’s intention to tackle this lack of reciprocity. In the Minister’s polling, I would have come out as one of those people not in favour of zero-hours contracts.

Amendment 8 would increase the Bill’s effectiveness by clarifying the distinction between zero-hours contracts and legitimate part-time contracts, because there is a world of difference between tackling potentially abusive zero-hours contracts and eliminating the flexibility that legitimate part-time contracts provide to those who need and want them. My concern is that the requirement to offer additional contract hours to those who voluntarily work extra hours will inadvertently prevent those additional hours being offered at all.

I am not exaggerating when I say that if the threshold for low-hours contracts is set too high, it will take a wrecking ball to the UK’s part-time economy. It will deprive millions of people of a valuable source of flexible income, and multiple industries of the flexibility they need to offer excellent services in sectors where demand is variable and volatile.

It is important to understand the nature of flexible part-time work. The vast majority of part-time workers provide an important supplement to their household income but are not the mainstay. They are people such as a parent whose childcare responsibilities mean they cannot work full time, students balancing their studies with their earnings, carers for elderly relatives, and those seeking to transition into retirement. What this diverse group of people has in common is that they value the guaranteed regular income their part-time contracts provide but also appreciate and value the ability, at their discretion, to add hours of work when they have more time available: for example, during university holidays, during term time for parents of school-age children, or at times when household costs rise—for example, in the run-up to Christmas.

These reciprocal arrangements benefit all involved. From a business perspective, sectors such as retail, hospitality, health and travel can maintain excellent services despite the intrinsically variable nature of demand in consumer-facing businesses. These flexible additional hours allow businesses to respond to seasonal peaks and unexpected surges in demand, and to do so in a way that offers voluntary additional hours to those who want them.

I hope this gives some sense of how important flexible part-time work is for the 8.5 million part-time employees in the UK. This flexible work will be under threat if the threshold for low-hour work is set too high in the Bill. My worry is that the Bill will make it almost impossible for businesses to offer additional voluntary hours to workers with contracts below the low-hour threshold. There are two reasons why: first, the complexity of trying to comply with the law, and secondly, the risk it creates for businesses that offer additional hours to part-time staff that they will end up with permanent and unaffordable overstaffing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

My Lords, the debate on this group of amendments has been invigorating and useful. I thank all those noble Lords, in particular, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, who have contributed to it.

My noble friend Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise commended the intention of the Bill to counter the ill effects of zero-hours contracts, which his company does not use. I honour his intent and indeed his extraordinary contributions to the nation’s employment and its economy in general. I note that he tended to agree with my proposal overall, in respect of the dysfunctionality of this clause. I would be happy if the wording of the clause, if it is incorporated into the Bill, incorporated his wording but removed the rest of the clause from the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, who does not appear to be in his place, spoke to Amendment 4, which, in the case that Section 27BA is retained in the Bill, switches the origination of a flexible-hours discussion from employer to employee. Clearly, this is a more sound and flexible approach, although I of course cannot go along with his later statement that he meant there to be an obligation on the employer to provide what the employee demanded.

My noble friend Lady Lawlor spoke movingly on the many things this Government have already done to depress economic activity and said—better than I—how this clause would make things much worse. She added the crucial point that the ill that this clause purports to address is in fact a good, much preferred by the majority of those working flexible hours.

My noble friend Lady Verma spoke with the authority of one who has great experience as an employer. She implored the Government to get their nose out of what should be a more relaxed and less formal relationship between employers and employees. The Government should pay her heed. My noble friend Lady Coffey spoke forensically about the wreckage this clause would create in the hospitality industry and also, very worryingly, in the NHS. Over and again, we heard noble Lords speak about the need for flexibility; this clause creates the opposite.

My noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom pointed particularly to the appalling outcomes this clause will create on the numbers of youth unemployed. Earlier, my noble friend Lady Meyer mentioned French youth unemployment at 19.2%. Have the Government any clue how that occurred? They did not intend that to happen, obviously. They do not want one in five of their youth unemployed who are seeking work. It occurred from precisely the sort of legislation that the Government are proposing to introduce here. Do we really want our youth unemployment to be one in five of those wanting to be employed? That is what I mean by outcomes rather than this notional and very generic idea of fairness—because it is not fair, either.

The Minister confirmed that the reference period will be in the legislation. This is welcome news, but it would have been better were it in the draft legislation right now, so that we could debate it right now—the time that we are supposed to be debating it. The Minister showed an impressive ability to wade through the latest iteration of what is an extraordinarily complex proposed set of rules, but creating and explaining such rules misses the entire point. This Government believe that “We know best” and therefore that if we create this perfect machine, these wonderful processes, all will be well. They do not know best; the market knows best and the market should be left to itself to sort out most of these matters. I urge the Minister to heed the words of the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, to provide clarity as soon as possible and to provide flexibility in the way that they have just urged her.

The Minister sought to provide clarity on agency workers. With respect, her words did not reflect reality. Let us take as one random example the interim management sector. These individuals take jobs to fill gaps that suddenly appear in a company, to fill the period before a permanent replacement can be found. The appointment of an interim manager may last a day or it may last a year, depending entirely on events that will only be happening in the future. To guarantee hours for these individuals is, quite frankly, entirely impossible. That is just one of many different sectors and different possible examples, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Verma, made clear just now.

I remain convinced that the outcome of this clause, if passed into law, will be significantly fewer—not more—jobs. Having said which, there are of course other ways of improving this clause if it is not removed entirely. These are ways that my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, have offered with their own amendments, the vast majority of which I have indicated that I agree with, not least after listening to the experienced voices of business from these Benches.

To conclude, the removal of flexibility from employers cannot possibly be a good thing. The more employment flexibility that is created in an economy, the more creative are the ways that entrepreneurial employers find to grow the economy, to create more jobs, to improve living standards and indeed to provide the Government with more tax revenues to meet the depressingly larger and larger commitments that this Government continue to take on. Having said all of which, I reserve the right to bring this amendment back on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

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.

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 5th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

My Lords, what a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Lawlor. I support the amendments introduced by my noble friend Lord Jackson. I am assured by my noble friend Lord Leigh that he believes that Hansard will record that he referred throughout his speech to “the noble Lord, Lord Jackson”.

Employment is a precious coin. It is the many coins of employment that keep this economy going. When there are more coins, the economy grows, and this whole House is united in wanting that to happen. We are all on the same side on that. We want the economy to grow, certainly not to shrink. And, like any coin, it has two sides: the side of the employee and the side of the employer.

Sitting through the many days of this Committee, any poor, benighted individual who has been watching on Parliament TV might think that this Chamber contains two parallel universes, with two entirely incompatible ideas of what employment is about. On the one side they are hearing about greedy employers, grasping capital, and the need for trade unions to protect the poor employee. But what is this coin of employment? It is a place where an individual says, “I want work. I want to go to work and earn money for me, my family, and my future”, and where an employer says, “I want to provide work. I want to risk my endeavours and my capital, even my solvency since I might go bankrupt, in order to give you that employment”. And it is a fair bargain.

Most employers, particularly small employers, who start up a business and employ people are not thinking, “I’m going to exploit these poor workers”. The vast majority of workers are not the victims that we have heard described as the reason why this clause is necessary. The vast number of employees work harmoniously with their employer, and the vast number of employers work harmoniously with their employees. I imagine this poor person watching Parliament TV and possibly, if the camera cuts to the faces opposite, seeing the looks of doubt, irritation and disbelief when I say this. But I have been an employer on literally scores of businesses, large and small, and I know how it works. What the employer wants is to provide a good or a service and sell it at a slightly higher price than the cost of providing that good or service, so as to make a little profit and employ lots of people at the same time. That is what they want to do.

What they dread is law upon law that they have to spend all their time on and which bad actors can use to exploit them. We all know that in the human population it is said that 3% are what they call “dark triad” personalities—narcissistic, Machiavellian and sociopathic—who are very good at concealing their behaviour and coming across as caring individuals, by the way. They are found in the most caring societies, and on all sides of the Chamber. The employer dreads that individual joining their company and having a mechanism by which they can exploit the company and make money out of it, taking it to the employment tribunal or threatening it with that and getting paid off, not working hard or doing whatever.

We are saying here that some poor person who is going to hire, say, three, five or 10 employees is going to have to spend all their time understanding these laws, doing the things that the laws lay down and responding to employment tribunals when a bad actor comes into their company—as they do, from time to time, in every company—rather than doing what they are there to do, which is to provide great goods or services to their customers. That is what nearly all of them, employer and employee alike, want to do.

Barbara Castle, the great Labour politician, recognised the problems with trades unions and produced a paper called In Place of Strife. I suggest that the Bill—you can imagine the poor employer with three employees having to go through its 300 pages to figure out what they are going to have to do with it, even as it is passed —is creating strife in many places, and that even Barbara Castle might be turning in her grave when she sees how far this Government are prepared to go. I have sat here sometimes wondering whether the Government really believe the things they are saying.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, to address the amendment. These sound like Second Reading speeches being redelivered and redelivered. When is the noble Lord going to address the actual amendment? This is just a tour de force around the 1970s and 1980s, with anecdotes from the Back Benches again. We are trying to do business.

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention, but I hope I am forgiven for thinking he has not been listening to what I have been saying. As I understand it, this clause is about reducing the number of people down to more or less nothing who are necessary in a company in order for a bunch of trades union mechanisms to be created. The amendment would remove that and tries to push up the number of employees below which this clause would not take effect. That is all that I have been talking about and I am startled to believe that a noble Lord of such eminence apparently has not been listening. I could finish fairly soon, if not interrupted much more.

My concern is that we are all people of good will. I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, is rightly proud of the many good things that trades unions have done, but surely she cannot be unaware of how the people of Birmingham might feel about the striking dustmen or about how the people of this great capital feel about striking Underground workers and the commuter trains that so often muck up their daily life. She must be aware that, on another coin of trade unionism, there is the good and the bad. We have employment tribunals with two years of delay to even get to a tribunal, but clause after clause, including this one, threatens to increase the number of references to employment tribunals.

This clause is going to increase the awful number that we have just seen today of 150,000 job losses. In the parallel universe that we are in, can it possibly be that the Government Benches believe that that loss of 150,000 jobs has nothing to do with this plan, with their NIC changes, as my noble friend Lord Lilley said, or with so many other changes that are detrimental to employment in this country?

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to the Clause 55 stand part notice and Amendment 208. I have sympathy with my noble friend’s amendments regarding small and micro employers. We need to cut to the chase. I will probably irritate the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, but what is the point of this?

The Minister in the other place said that he hoped this clause would be “straightforward”—it is certainly straightforward—and “uncontroversial”. He said:

“Currently, there is no general requirement for employers to let their staff know of their right to join a trade union”.


and that there is a duty in this clause. He said:

“A lack of awareness of the right to join a trade union may be contributing to declining union membership and reduced worker engagement in collective bargaining. The clause will help empower workers to become active in protecting their rights. This is a step forward in strengthening worker representation”,—[Official Report, Commons, Employment Rights Bill Committee, 7/1/25; col. 517.]


and so on.

I go back to the point I made in a previous debate: the key headline in selling this to the public was that it was about day-one rights. As I have already explained to the Committee, this could have been done through a statutory instrument. Part 4 is a classic example of the fact that a lot of the motivation is about increasing trade union membership. Trade union membership is now at about 6 million people, I think; it might be just over that. By the way, as I said at Second Reading, I am not against trade unions, but I do not think it is the job of legislation to try to increase trade union membership as a consequence of our actions here today. I made the point about political funds.

To come back to the numbers, about 22% of employees are now members of a trade union. Of course, people have to pay a fee. I have recommended to people that they join a trade union, but we should be aware that the only sector where trade union membership is going up is the public sector. My general perspective on some of these things is that people tend to join a trade union when they do not trust their employer and they think they might need help, when they are not treated well or when there are other issues worrying them. That is when a lot of the benefits of trade unions come in, such as getting access to legal advice—I know there are plenty of other benefits as well. Family members of mine are trade union members and, as I say, I am not anti-trade union, but I am concerned about the approach we are taking in Part 4.

On Amendment 208, it would be useful to get an understanding from the Minister about what other prescribed times there might be. It is one of the oddest bits of this part of the Bill. When you join, you get to know certain things—it might not all be on day one; I accept that there is a bit later that talks about instalments and that sometimes you get to know certain key things, but you must do it within two weeks or two months, I cannot remember which. You may not get everything on day one, but, nevertheless, what are the other prescribed times? Will it be the same frequency as is being put in the Bill about the reminder to opt out of the trade union political fund, which will have moved to every 10 years? Why not put it in the Bill if we want an annual reminder, or we want it at the same frequency as a say on whether people can be part of the trade union political fund—or indeed on ways that that decision is made?

I am concerned about this element. There is no doubt that employer representatives are concerned about aspects of this Bill. In particular, when they spoke to me earlier this week, they said that quite a lot of the impact assessment is written on the basis that savings will be down to the fact that there will be fewer strikes. We should recognise the history of strikes happening in our employment places in the last couple of years or so: the number of strikes has gone up significantly in the public sector, exactly where trade union membership is going up—not the other way round. I appreciate that there has been a change in government and that Wes Streeting sat around a table, but we know that right now, where trade union membership is going up, the ballot papers—I do not quite know the process—are going out, calling for getting the vote together for a mandate for industrial action. It is happening right now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, this group of amendments concerns the provision of employment rights. The essence of the group is about requiring employers to provide workers with a written statement of their trade union rights. Even after seven hours, I enjoyed listening to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, describe a romp through the 1970s and the bad old days of the Labour Party bringing the country to its knees and almost losing the car industry. He failed to skip into the 1980s, when the Government did destroy an industry—the coal industry—and did immeasurable damage to the trade union movement, which it has taken decades to recover from and is at the heart of the Bill. It is a direct result of actions taken by a certain Government in a previous life. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, I have been here since the start of the debate and listening. As the Companion says, it is courtesy to be here at the start of the debate to listen to the opening speeches and then the winding up speeches. There seems to be real departure from that by Members, who just wander in, make contributions and wander out.

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

I hope the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, is not saying I was not here for the start of this debate. Of course, the Labour Government closed down more coal mines than Margaret Thatcher.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

I did not imply that the noble Lord was not here—he was. He is assiduous in his attendance to this House and I enjoy 90% of what he says, much of which is quite amusing, but not much knowledge from it goes into my head.

I have one final point for the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for whom I have the highest regard. I thought she was an excellent Minister and makes excellent contributions. However, I have to gently remind her that I think she also made her contribution tonight a couple of nights ago, in response to my intervention about the reason behind the Bill. However, I enjoy the heart and soul that she puts into this. She is interrogating and pushing the Government, but I try to keep it to what we are trying to do here.

These provisions are intended to ensure that individuals are made aware of their right to join a trade union. I do not think there is anything wrong with that. It is a fundamental element of workplace democracy. The amendments in this group raise important and valid questions about how that requirement should operate in practice, especially for smaller employers—and, yes, it may put a burden on them. For example, Amendments 205 and 207 examine whether it is appropriate for those duties to apply universally, or whether the threshold should be considered to avoid placing disproportionate burdens on small businesses.

I am somewhat concerned about the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, to remove the provisions from the Bill entirely. It risks sending the wrong signal about the importance of transparency around trade union rights. Although it is, of course, necessary to ensure that new obligations are proportionate and clearly drafted, deleting the entire clause at this stage could be seen as an overly blunt response. It would be preferable for the Government to engage with all the points raised tonight in these amendments and explore whether a more targeted approach could be achieved, with a fairer workable outcome that upholds workers’ rights without creating undue complexities for employers.

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—