Lord Sharpe of Epsom:

Moved by Lord Sharpe of Epsom

135: Schedule 6, page 227, line 12, leave out sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) Member’s explanatory statementThis Amendment and others in the name of Lord Sharpe maintain the existing 10% membership threshold for union recognition applications by removing provisions that would have allowed this threshold to be modified through secondary legislation.

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 135 to 143, all in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral. When this power first appeared in the Bill, the Minister in the other place, Mr Justin Madders, admitted that the Government had not even decided whether they were intending to use it. First, they said there would be no consultation, then they changed their minds. That is not a serious way to make Laws; it is confused and confusing, especially for, as ever, SMEs, which are, as we have discussed many times during the passage of the Bill, in a state of uncertainty about the basic rules governing their own workplace.

If the membership threshold was reduced to 2%, as the Government appear to envisage, in a company that employs 250 employees, it would require only five members in the bargaining unit to request a ballot. That would mean that a union could gain bargaining authority over workplace conditions, pay and leave arrangements for the entire bargaining unit based on the explicit support of a tiny number of employees. This raises questions about whether such an arrangement adequately reflects workforce preferences, particularly for employees who may value direct engagement. That potentially creates a situation in which unions may submit many speculative requests for recognition, with little depth of membership in a proposed bargaining unit. The process comes at a cost to the employer of both managing and arranging access and facilities, and to the Central Arbitration Committee for supervising these potentially speculative ballots.

I really think this speaks for itself; there is not a huge amount to say in addition, although I would note that the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, talked earlier about workplace democracy. Whatever it is, it is not this, so I beg to move.

My Lords, I have Amendment 144 in this group. We discussed the same amendment in Committee. If we do not have a number, it means that, essentially, one employee could trigger union recognition. Surely that is not something we should impose on small businesses.

My Lords, this set of amendments is a proportionate response to the Bill’s Schedule 6 to ensure that we have clarity in the Bill for all parties about the threshold to be met in respect of a union seeking recognition to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of a group of workers making a request for recognition. As matters stand, employers, unions and employees know that the threshold for recognition is 10%. This is established under Schedule A1 of the trade union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, on trade union recognition for the union or unions seeking recognition to be entitled to conduct the collective bargaining on behalf of a group of workers.

The 10% threshold is set out in paragraph 36 and reinforced throughout Schedule A1 in the subsequent paragraphs that my noble friend’s amendments seek to reinstate. That includes paragraphs 45 and 51 on competing applications, paragraphs 86 to 88, and paragraph 14 on applications. As your Lordships know, this Bill substitutes the words “the required percentage”, including for paragraph 45 on the validity of applications. We know that the required percentage may be 2%, but it has become almost a euphemism for whatever a Minister may decide post consultation and impose via statutory instrument in whatever circumstances we may imagine. It may be that the union masterminding the Birmingham bin chaos, which finds its members fleeing to another union, wants the Government to get a 1% or 0.5% figure in the instrument—or else it would withhold its support from the Labour Party.

I strongly support this set of amendments because they make it clear to all the parties concerned what the threshold will be. They will encourage trade unions to meet that threshold in the workplace and not to put their recognition bids through the backdoor of a statutory instrument. They should play fair with the workers, the employers and the country about the 10% threshold.

My Lords, I will speak to all the amendments in this group. I approach it from the perspective that democracy is always about cherishing minority views and making reasonable allowances, with the proviso that the minority do not hold the Majority over the barrel. If you allow the minority a veto or special qualification to enforce their narrow view of the world, it encourages extreme views and intransigence. If you give somebody a veto, do not be surprised if they use it. The effect of the Bill is perhaps to give minorities significantly lower than the 10% threshold a perverse incentive to exercise that veto. That is not good for the individual or the employer, and I believe that it is not even good for the unions, because it potentially weakens their members’ mandate.

I speak from the perspective of somebody who has negotiated the local government pay deal for many years as part of the national joint committee, alongside the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. My experience is coloured by the knowledge that in local government there are three different unions involved—UNISON, Unite and GMB—and it is a complicated negotiating environment. It is hard enough to get consensus with three unions in the mix, still less with 10—but that is where the Bill is taking us.

If we do not accept these amendments, it will place the employers in the invidious position of choosing between various unions. The lower the threshold, the greater the incentive to fragment the union landscape—the Judean People’s Front phenomenon—and, in so doing, weaken the benefits of sensible recognition and union power. I cannot understand why the brothers are so keen to reduce the 10% threshold. Why should the employer be placed in an impossible position to arbitrate between warring unions, jostling for position and preference by allowing each to assert rights that they should be agreeing among themselves?

These amendments will not weaken the thrust of what the Government are trying to achieve, but they would provide the certainty of a materiality threshold that would otherwise allow the unintended consequences of negotiation chaos—too many cooks being allowed to spoil the broth. That would disadvantage the employee by reducing the negotiating power of the majority; disadvantage the employer by making it hard to negotiate with unions with sufficient critical mass; and, for the union movement, value fragmentation and the pursuance of special interests over building consensus.

Once more, we have an opportunity to ask the Government to support sensible and measured amendments that will help them achieve their purpose. To resist would risk delivering the opposite, and not for the first time.

My Lords, in Committee we tabled several amendments resisting this reduction from 10%, and the reason for doing that was that we think that is the existing and fair threshold. To go to 2% is not being done for the reason that the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, says, which is about competing unions and getting the one with the lowest threshold, but for a different reason.

When we have had these arguments, in Committee and tonight, the fall-back position of the Ministers and other speakers is, “Well, they don’t have to join a union—they don’t have to be in a union”. I was in the GMB—I do wish people would not list Unite and the other one, and put the GMB third; please put the GMB a bit further up the pecking order next time. But the point of the story that I am trying to tell noble Lords is that although the Minister says that you do not have to join a union, by reducing this to 2% from 10% you are effectively stacking the deck. You are setting them up there. If you believe that trade unions are free to join or not, and there is a threshold and it is 10%, that is your principle, and that has stood for years. Why, then, in employment law do you need to move that down to 2%? What brings you to that number? There is an obvious reason for that number, is there not?

On the unintended consequences again—it becomes a mantra, but I will say it very quickly—in small and medium-sized businesses employing 10, 15 or 20 people, they need only two, three or four people to say, “We want to join a union” for it to become complicated, with HR and all the other unintended consequences. So 10% is a reasonable threshold. The Government have given us no reason why they want to change it from 10% to 2%. They should leave it at 10%; leave the status quo. If the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, decides to press his Amendment tonight, my depleted troops will be supporting him in the Lobby.

I thank all noble Lords for the short but focused debate we have had on this set of amendments, moved and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I particularly pay tribute to my fellow GMB member, the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport.

As I set out in Committee, we believe that current thresholds pose too high a hurdle in modern workplaces, which are, as we know, increasingly fragmented. We want therefore to be able to consider whether the 10% membership threshold on application should be reduced in future. The reason why a range of 2% to 10% has been chosen is that, in 2020, the previous Government reduced the threshold that triggers information and consultation arrangements from 10% to 2% in the workplace, so what the Bill proposes aligns with that. But, to be absolutely clear, we want to consult before making any decisions on whether we should bring forward secondary legislation and by how much the threshold should be varied, if at all. We will consult businesses—including, of course, small and medium-sized businesses—as part of that consultation process.

Should we decide to bring forward secondary legislation in the future, that legislation will be subject to full debate in both your Lordships’ House and the other place. We will carry out an impact assessment at that time that will consider impacts on businesses, including, as before, small and medium-sized businesses.

I want to reassure all noble Lords, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, in particular, that, whatever the application percentage in the bargaining unit is or may be, the fact remains that unions would still need to obtain a Majority of a bargaining unit in a trade union recognition ballot. That point is fundamental to the misconception that is coming from the Benches opposite about what this part of the Bill does or does not do. To be clear, this is not, to address the point of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, the “tyranny of the minority”; in fact, it is absolutely contrary to that point. This is ultimately about a trade union having to win a majority.

Experience has shown that this is not easy to achieve. The union will have to make a good case to persuade the majority in the bargaining unit to vote for recognition in a recognition ballot overseen by an independent, qualified person. It is in the trade union’s interest to be confident that it can win a majority in the ballot, otherwise it would still be prevented, as is currently the case, from applying for another statutory recognition ballot in the same bargaining unit for three years. That is why it is highly unlikely that a union will apply for statutory recognition when there is only one worker who is a member of that union. Indeed, if experience tells us anything, it is that it is highly likely that trade unions will continue to focus their efforts on larger workplaces where there is greater bang for the organising buck.

The union recognition process is generally consensual, and that is a good thing. In the nine years from 2017 to 2025, only 375 recognition applications have gone to the CAC. Close to half of the 1,476 recognition applications received since 1999 were withdrawn by unions at various stages of the recognition processes, in many cases because the parties have reached a voluntary agreement for recognition. The confrontation that has been set up by some speakers from the Benches opposite is a chimera; this is not the reality of organised workplaces. Given that, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, to withdraw Amendment 135.

I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the context in a bit more detail, but I am afraid I am not entirely persuaded. I would like to test the opinion of the House.

Ayes 92, Noes 130.

Amendment 135 disagreed.

Amendments 136 to 145 not moved.

Clause 59: Requirement to contribute to political fund

Amendment 146 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Consideration on Report adjourned.

House adjourned at 9.51 pm.