Lord Sharpe of Epsom:

Moved by Lord Sharpe of Epsom

Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendments 23 and 106 to 120, and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 120C, 120D and 120E.”

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for outlining the government amendments and for the noble Lords opposite’s willingness to meet. But to say that the amendments that have been offered are inadequate would be something of an understatement. In essence, they oblige the Secretary of State, before making regulations, to

“consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”.

Who might those persons be? That really is the extent of the Amendment. We already know that, so far, government consultations with business on this Bill have been desultory at best. I do not believe that the amendment even qualifies as a bunny, never mind a rabbit.

The chorus of disapproval for this proposed legislation has now been joined by Labour’s most successful ever Prime Minister, Sir Tony Blair. As my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley pointed out—and to expand on my noble friend’s remarks—in its report Tony Blair’s institute said:

“At present, employees gain protection from unfair dismissal only after two years—one of the longest qualifying periods in the OECD. The bill would move to the opposite extreme, granting such rights immediately. This would raise employment costs by increasing the legal and procedural risks attached to every new hire and discourage firms from recruiting—a concern already raised by some of the UK’s largest business groups, which have urged the government to amend the bill”.

Addressing the Government’s intention to introduce regulations allowing an initial probationary period, during which an employee could be dismissed under a light-touch process, the institute said that

“uncertainty over what rights apply during probation will do little to reassure employers nervous about taking on staff. Introducing a six-month qualifying period for unfair-dismissal protection, which is more typical among advanced economies including across much of Northern Europe and Australia, is more likely to balance fairness with flexibility”.

Meanwhile, billionaire Labour backer John Caudwell put it rather more succinctly. He said this will make Britain “less investable”. He continued:

“It’s not good for Britain, it’s not good for workers”.

Spot on.

To summarise, we have multiple business groups against this, and perhaps we should recap who they are: the Federation of Small Businesses, the CBI, the Institute of Directors, Make UK, the ADS Group, the British Retail Consortium, Care England, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, Family Business UK, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation and UKHospitality. The British Chambers of Commerce contacted me after the last debate to explain that it would have signed the letter but had been too late.

Academia has added its voice to the chorus of disapproval. Professor Jonathan Haskel of Imperial College, and a former member of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee, said:

“Using the OECD index of employment regulation, there’s a negative relationship which is that more employment regulation means less intangible investment. My best prediction is that the employment rights bill is a rise in uncertainty for firms. The reason is that these employment rights are set out in broad outline in the bill but will then end up being interpreted by the courts”.

Those are all joined by the Government’s favourite think tank, as we discussed last time: the Resolution Foundation. Lest we forget, its former chief executive now sits in the Treasury. I have to say, looking at the Benches opposite, that they are also joined by quite a lot of Labour Peers, whose facial expressions the Minister cannot see.

The Government will of course say, “Business would say that, wouldn’t they?”, but that is to miss the point. These are the people who make hiring decisions, who decide whether to offshore because it is cheaper and causes them fewer HR headaches, whether to downsize, and whether to just close down completely, as we just heard so powerfully on the last group from my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley and his correspondent—I think it was Mr Dunham.

Remember that the impact assessment says the measure is likely to have a disproportionate impact on small and micro-businesses. Additionally, following the decision by the Government to double the conciliating period to 12 weeks for ACAS to resolve disputes, the Employment Lawyers Association has said:

“We are apolitical but the fact is that Parliament can pass all the reforming legislation it wants, but unless those Laws can be enforced, with cases heard within a reasonable time, its laws are placed over the horizon, de facto out of sight to both workers and employers alike”.

These are the people who might be expected to benefit from the 10,500 increase in claims forecast to go before ACAS in the Government’s own impact assessment. Instead, they are expressing despair at the broken employment tribunal system.

As we saw last week, unemployment is rising and stands at almost 2 million, and it was reported yesterday that half the 170,000 jobs shed since Labour came to power are from the under-25s. Everyone who knows anything at all about wealth creation, about private sector hiring and about employment law says that the Bill will make it worse.

I need to refer back to the Tony Blair Institute, because it was very explicit about discouraging from hiring and I noticed that the Minister did not engage with that particular point in his introduction. This debate is about the people the party opposite claim to want to help. It is about a young person trying to find a job, a long-term unemployed person trying to rejoin the workforce, a woman wanting to return to work after having children, and somebody recovering from a long-term health issue getting back on their feet. The Bill should be about helping them; it is doing the complete opposite.

The last time we debated this, the Minister constructed a tortuous analogy and said that I and my party were on some sort of journey. If we are, our destination is common sense, and the Government need to listen to the wise voices on their own side and to join us.

On Motion F1, all I will do is quote what the Health Secretary said last week, that

“to be out on strike, setting back the NHS, because you don’t think we’re going fast enough, and because the leadership of your union are not honest enough that some of this change takes time, is extremely irresponsible. It is extremely unnecessary”.

He said that the BMA

“is no longer a professional association, and it is engaged in cartel-like behaviour”,

and that:

“The BMA’s leadership appear more interested in grandstanding and causing pain to patients than improving the lives of frontline resident doctors”.

Those are fairly damning words.

According to the Government’s own analysis, the full-time basic pay of resident doctors is expected to reach £54,300. This is where the farce becomes almost theatrical, because recently we heard that the Treasury considers that anyone earning above £45,000 a year is not a working person.

It appears that the Government have achieved something truly novel. They are actively creating a category of “non-working people”—not my phrase but the Chancellor’s own definition—and then showering them with no-strings-attached pay rises. Meanwhile, the BMA, emboldened by these spineless handouts, continues to abuse its influence, holding our NHS hostage while the Government wave through concessions without so much as a performance requirement or reform condition attached. The 50% threshold is not some sort of draconian barrier but a bare minimum, a line of defence against precisely this kind of chaos. Removing it will only accelerate the downward spiral that the Government have set in motion with their desperate, unconditional giveaways. The union bosses, entirely predictably, have now turned on them the moment it suited their agenda. I beg to move.

My Lords, I support Motion E1. As the Minister has set out, the Government wish to go back to an arrangement where all new members automatically pay the contribution to the union’s political fund unless they take the initiative of opting out.

My own view is that it should be equally easy for a person to choose to contribute or not to contribute to the political fund at the point of applying to join the union. That is what my Amendment seeks to do. The alternative approach supported by the Government is to have arrangements designed to minimise the number of new members who will exercise their legal right not to contribute to political funds. They want to do this by requiring action to opt out but not requiring any action to opt in, but, surely, an equal choice can be given only by respecting people’s personal preference.

Clearly, the Government wish to reduce the number of people exercising their right not to contribute. As one Labour Member in the House of Commons stated when opposing my amendment, they aim to avoid

“a reduction in the ability of working people to speak with a collective voice

That is a wonderful euphemism for putting barriers in the way of people exercising their true preference.

I accept that opting out has been the dominant arrangement for political funds since 1945. However, as I said last time, the rest of the world has moved on. Technology and widespread use of online applications and communications have made it much easier and less burdensome for members of an organisation to make a clear and convenient choice. Additionally, the standards that are now accepted for dealing fairly with people exercising their choice have changed significantly. Active, explicit consent has become the accepted standard.

I have examined the existing application forms for five unions which have political funds and whose application forms are easy to access without having to initiate the online application process myself—which I thought would be a rather risky thing to do. Two forms stand out. The version of the UNISON form, which I have seen, already provides a clear choice. There are two parts to the fund, one for the benefit of the Labour Party and another for general campaigning. Applicants are asked to tick their preference between the campaign funds, Labour Link, and “no thank you”. The GMB form, which I have also seen, offers a clear choice in response to the question:

“Do you want to opt-in to the political fund?”

There are two boxes. Applicants are asked to select the “yes” or “no” box. The other three application forms simply ask whether new members wish to contribute to the political fund. However, importantly, all of them have clearly decided that it is in their own interests to ask applicants to opt in at the point that they apply to be members—I will come back to this in a moment.

My goal remains to find a solution that provides genuine freedom of choice, avoiding the need for repeated arguments with each change of government. My amendment requires all unions to adopt the approach taken by the GMB and UNISON unions under the present law. It would give members a clear and transparent choice when joining a union that gets away from a focus on opt-in or opt-out. Under the amendment, all applicants to join a union with a political fund would be required to answer a simple question: do they wish to contribute to the political fund or not? It is an equal choice with no bias. That question will be on the application form.

I worry that this amendment, as it is set down on the amendment paper, may seem rather lengthy and complicated, but the essence lies in Amendment 72D—the remaining amendments are all subsidiary to the key provision of that amendment.

In rejecting my previous amendment, the Minister in the House of Commons stated, and we have heard it from the Minister in this place again this afternoon, that reinstating automatic contributions to the political fund, unless members choose to opt out, would

“restore balance and fairness in union operations

But what could be more balanced and fairer than the present UNISON and GMB forms, where applicants have a clear choice which they exercise at the time that they apply to join?

The Minister further claimed in the other House that the current opt-in system did not improve transparency or strengthen members’ choice, but how can that possibly be true of the amendment I put forward today? What could be more transparent or strengthen choice more than presenting two options side by side, along with the case for having a political fund, and allowing members to choose between them?

The Minister in the House of Commons, and the Minister this afternoon, have emphasised that under the proposed arrangements in the Bill, members will be informed on the application form of their right to opt out of contributing to the political fund and that opting out will have no impact on other aspects of their membership. However, I notice that there has been no commitment to being able to exercise a choice to opt out by ticking a box on the application form. Perhaps the Minister could explain why this simple option was not mentioned and apparently will not be required. Even under the opt-out system proposed by the Government, it would improve transparency and strengthen choice if members could exercise their choice not to contribute on the application form. If they are required to apply subsequently for an opt-out form to complete, does this improve transparency? Does it strengthen choice? Of course not.

I have had very helpful conversations with the Minister, and I must say I am very sorry to find myself in dispute with the Government on this. I have no political interest in this debate but continue to press the issue because this is not the way we expect organisations to operate today. It is a step backwards from the hard-fought cross-party compromise of 2016, and it is a stark reversal of everything we have learned in recent years about making choice more transparent and ensuring that decisions better reflect people’s true preferences.

My Lords, I want to speak to Motion B1. Like, I think, many noble Lords, I start to become a bit uncomfortable when we have multiple rounds of ping-pong; and I generally hesitate to vote against the Government in more than one round, but I am expecting to make an exception in this case, for four main reasons.

First, I firmly believe that introducing day-one unfair dismissal rights will cause real and permanent harm to young people and others who are seen as higher-risk hires, such as those who have been on benefits for a long period, ex-offenders and people who have had long career breaks, perhaps because of parental or other caring obligations. When I say permanent, I mean that; if you are unemployed for a year, it becomes considerably more difficult to get on to that ladder and to make a success of your career. This is really important.

I am supported in that belief by every business group. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has listed many such groups; I would add another: the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, of which I am a member. There is the Resolution Foundation, the Tony Blair Institute, and perhaps most importantly, the Government’s own impact assessment, which is very clear on this. I would love to hear the Minister’s views on his own impact assessment—he has never actually addressed that point. None of the several Ministers in this place or the other place has made any coherent argument to the contrary. So I put the question very simply to the Minister: will restricting the reasons that may be used to dismiss someone during a probation period, and thereby opening up the risk of an employment tribunal from day one, make it more or less likely that an employer, especially a smaller employer, will take a risk on, or give a chance to, a young person with no experience? Is it more or less likely? It is very simple. I think most of us know the answer to that. Is he going to argue that his own impact assessment is wrong?

Secondly, this measure directly contradicts other government policy. The Government’s youth guarantee, something I am strongly in favour of, will offer every eligible young person who has been on universal credit for 18 months guaranteed paid work. To do that, you need employers who are willing to give them a job and to take that risk. Why would an employer do that if they can be taken to the employment tribunal from day one if the employment does not work out? It does not make sense.

Thirdly, despite, frankly, the clear harm that this will do, the Government have not provided any evidence that the change will create any material tangible benefits for workers. No evidence has been provided to show that the qualifying period is being abused or is causing actual harm. There is no evidence provided in the impact assessment; there is evidence that doing this will cause harm, but none about the harm we are trying to solve. No evidence has been provided in this or the other place.

The Resolution Foundation is also very clear: if we are going to harm the life chances of young people, which is what the Government confirm in their impact assessment, we must have real evidence that there is a genuine greater benefit, not just the usual statement that it cannot be right that someone can ever be dismissed for no reason.

Fourthly and finally, I want to look more closely at the claim that this is a manifesto commitment. It is in the manifesto, but it is part of a wider commitment that includes the explicit commitment:

“We will consult fully with businesses, workers, and civil society on how to put our plans into practice before legislation is passed”.

We have heard several times today that the Government will consult afterwards. They might argue that that is because the rules for the probationary period will be in a statutory instrument.

Let us unpick this light-touch probationary period the Government are talking about. The problem is that the Bill expressly and specifically sets out the reasons why someone can be dismissed from day one during that probationary period, meaning that it is not genuinely a probationary period. Under the Bill, it cannot become a light-touch probationary period; that is simply impossible, given the way the Bill is drafted. I would love to understand more about the light-touch probationary period because we have had no detail about what it really means. However, the employer is obligated by the Bill—the Act, should that come to pass—to give specific reasons which are limited by the Bill. It cannot be light-touch, so I would like to understand better what the Government mean by that.

There is a possible way forward, however, which is where I start, perhaps, to part company with the Opposition. It is because the Bill sets out that there have to be specific reasons for dismissal that is the problem—that is what allows the employment tribunal to get involved during a probationary period and all the rest of it. I wonder—I am thinking aloud—whether there is a solution to the problem by taking that element out.

For those reasons, I am inclined to support the Opposition on Motion B1. I urge the Minister to take this seriously. As the Resolution Foundation put it so well, let us not

“needlessly put employers off hiring”.

My Lords, we have heard four very good speeches, and I do not intend to repeat them. I listened very carefully to the Minister and, unusually, I will read what he said in Hansard rather than just saying I will, because there was some interesting stuff there. I picked out the phrase, “We will not compromise on the fundamental principles of the Bill”. It would help if those could be set out because they are currently in the eye of the beholder.

The Minister also raised the notion that someone who had worked just less than two years should not be unfairly dismissed. The Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, recognises that point fundamentally but there are 730 days between day one and two years. We do not have to go from 730 to one; there are stages. We may disagree on that.

The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, pulled out the issue of light-touch rules and the criteria for fair dismissal in the Bill. I have some problems with the noble Lord’s suggestion, because if it is not in primary legislation, it will come as secondary legislation. We all know that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition never kill secondary legislation—I am looking at them. We would like to from time to time because it should happen; there should be a sense of jeopardy in secondary legislation, which currently there is not. Without that sense of jeopardy, I am not happy with taking things out. However, if it is in primary legislation, the consultation is not worth anything because it is already there, so we might as well forget about that.

As we know, as drafted, the Bill would abolish a qualifying period altogether. The rationale behind that is clear and we will support the noble Lord in the event that that Motion is put.

We also heard a compelling speech from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, that I will not attempt to improve on, but the Minister should listen to what he said about bringing this back into the political arena, because once the political pendulum is pushed, it can swing back. That is worth bearing in mind.

Finally, Motion F1 reinstates the requirement that industrial action can proceed only if at least 50% vote. This is something we have supported in the past and we will continue to.

I return very briefly to Motion B1. To make jobs pay, as we have said, there need to be jobs. We learn that half the jobs lost since this Government came to power were for workers under 25—the very people who the noble Lords, Lord Vaux and Lord Sharpe, talked about. Their future will not be helped—indeed, it will be hindered—by the Bill, nor will the millions on benefits the Government seek to move into employment. That is the 21% inactive that I talked about in the first group. I hope that noble Lords can help common sense prevail by voting today and supporting these amendments.

My Lords, I apologise: I wanted to speak before the noble Lord, Lord Fox, spoke, but he went far too quickly and never looked in my direction.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, a former Lord Chief Justice and the first President of the Supreme Court, asked a question: would you employ somebody with a criminal record without the qualifying period? He was never answered. Like a gramophone where the needle has stuck, I am stuck in that groove, so I will ask a second time: would you employ somebody without any qualifying period if they have a criminal record? I will add another category. Say somebody graduated from university and could have worked because they are not unwell, but they have not worked for 30 years and they want to go back to work: would you employ them without any probationary period? The serious issue here is like the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said: going from two years to just one day—24 hours and you are in.

There is another thing that worries me. We tend to describe employers as if they are all rogues. There are some bad employers, but the Majority abide by the law. Today, they go before a tribunal if there is an unfair dismissal, so most people do not do it, but they want to have the security of knowing, when someone comes in, that there is a period of six months, say, during which they find out how that person plays in the firm and whether they are going to be loyal and faithful.

This probationary period is not a bad thing; most of us have been through it. I was a deacon for one year, and if they had discovered that I was no good, that would have been the end. The bishop would not have made me a priest; he would have said, “I will leave you as a deacon, and somebody, one day, may use you”. That sort of thing is discussed in relation to people in the army. For example, a gentleman might want to become a commanding officer, and his trainer puts on his report, “Men will follow this gentleman, out of nothing”—or, in other words, “Do not take him”. Those reports are still being written.

Let us not deny employers who like to take on young people who have done some kind of mentoring work. I took on some, and that period was very useful. Quite a number ended up being ordained. We are discussing one day—24 hours—in which someone cannot be dismissed. I reckon that that is not how the world works. We want to protect workers’ rights but let us do it properly.

Finally, although this is a manifesto commitment, there is always a hurdle to turning a manifesto commitment into legislation. For me, the law is a public statement of policy; it is not just a manifesto commitment. Will this country go awry because we are so keen to protect workers’ rights—which we all want to do—without any qualifying period? I support Motion B1.

My Lords, I cannot resist telling the House the following. Immediately after secretarial college, I had a job for a fortnight. On the last day, my employer said to me, “What are you really wanting to do?”, and I said, “Be a barrister”. He replied, “Thank goodness. You would never make a career as a secretary”.

We have had many days of debate in Committee and on Report, so I want to bring matters to a conclusion. Our changes will not prevent fair dismissal. The Government will ensure that employers can operate a statutory probationary period to assess new hires. That is exactly what will be in the Bill and what we will consult on. We are committed to consulting on the light-touch approach to the probationary period, and we have made that clear at each stage of the Bill.

Our reforms to the labour market are critical for growth, because low productivity is our biggest problem in this country. How do we ensure that we motivate good employers? I have correspondence from think tanks, such as the Tony Blair Institute, on protecting workers from unfair dismissal from day one of employment. They say that employers could respond to this by improving their people management—a vital ingredient to productivity—which could boost labour productivity. This must be one of the benefits that comes from job mobility. These are issues that we discussed in Committee, so I do not want to go on.

The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, raised the issue of convictions. I have repeatedly said that, currently, having a spent conviction is not a proper ground on which someone can be dismissed, unless it is from one of the roles listed in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. The two-year qualifying period applies, making it an unfair dismissal claim in those circumstances, which is what the Conservatives have put.

I appreciate, as I said to the noble Lord opposite before, that the Conservatives have been on a journey from day-one rights to six months, 12 months and two years—and they are now back to six months. I urge them to think about going that one step further. Most employment law has been subject to those statutory instruments and codes of practice, because we do need to respond to them. It is incredibly complicated, and we cannot simply put it in the Bill.

The impact assessment is there. If nothing else happens then of course there will be a danger, but the point I am making is that this is about creating a fairer and better workforce, where we encourage employers to set the best practice so that we have a situation where productivity is increased. What are we afraid of? I believe that no one in this Chamber supports unfair dismissal. We are talking about is ensuring that everyone who is employed can have that basic human right. Therefore, it is absolutely important.

The whole point—I will repeat what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe—is that, as we have said from the start, the implementation will be done with a light touch. There will be a power in the Bill to modify the test for when employers can fairly dismiss employees during the statutory probationary period. In response to all the issues that noble Lords raised in Committee and on Report—such as whether we are getting rid of the probationary period or, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, asked, whether we are inhibiting employers—the answer is no; we just want it done properly and fairly. That is not an unreasonable demand in this modern age.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, that there has indeed been a burden on the tribunal system because of unfair dismissals, as we have seen the cost of that. We recognise the volume of cases going to both ACAS and the employment tribunal, and the Government will extend the ACAS early conciliation time from six weeks to 12 weeks from 1 December, to allow it to manage and deal with the demand for early conciliation services. DPT is also providing additional financing immediately to recruit 29 additional conciliators, ensuring that ACAS can deal with that. Therefore, we are responding to those issues.

The BMA strike ballot was under the conditions that the noble Lord talked about, but that has not stopped the dispute. What will stop it is having proper negotiations, and that is what the Health Minister is focused on ensuring happens. Legislating to somehow undermine ballots is not the answer. We want to ensure that unions are representative and that their ballots are too. We want to ensure that they have a modern way of balloting, to ensure that we increase participation. That will be the key to future fair and open collective bargaining.

I turn to the Amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, on political funds. He knows—I have incredibly strongly made this point to him—that a trade union is not a company and is not offering services. It is a democratic body. There are collective decisions. If a trade union makes a resolution at its conference to support X or Y policy, that is the collective decision. People can opt out of that collective decision by leaving the trade union—and many do. If a union starts spouting things that are not representative of its members, then the members will walk. It is not compulsory to be a member of a trade union. However, it is a collective body making collective decisions.

The noble Lord said, “We want to avoid pendulum swings”. I admire the work that he did on his committee, which ensured that there was a soft landing for a decision made by the then Government in 2016 to break a consensus that had been in existence from 1945. We are trying to return to that consensus, in order to recognise that trade unions are an important part of our democracy. I have said before that the most important ingredient of a healthy democracy is a vibrant civil society. We all need to be challenged, and that is what this is about—collective decisions.

Whether the noble Lord thinks so or not, the fact is that his current amendment basically maintains the processes of 2016. I have engaged in discussions with him. I think most trade union leaders recognise that the world has changed. When I first joined a trade union, in the early 1970s, it required us to write a letter. The only information about contracting out was contained in the rulebook. Not many people read the rulebook. We now have online facilities—email—and the possibility of someone exercising their right to opt out. Of course, the reasons for opting out are not just political; they can be religious. That has been part of the consensus since 1945.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, has a strong view about this, but, if we can make progress in the future, it will be on the basis of understanding that collective responsibility and ensuring that people’s ability to opt out—to contract out—is properly transparent and acted upon speedily, which is why we put that amendment down in the other place.

I hope the noble Lords will understand that we have tried to respond to the cases. On the threshold, it is very clear, and I hope the noble Lord will consider not pressing his Motion—and indeed all his Motions. We have said that we will not implement that change without absolutely ensuring that the issue of turnout is properly addressed through members being able to vote not just by post but through other methods. I have banged on long enough, so I hope we can respond to this.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response, but he has yet again failed to answer the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu. We know that you cannot use a spent conviction as a reason for a dismissal, and that is entirely appropriate. The point is that there will not be anybody with a spent conviction in work, because no one will employ them. That is what the noble and right reverend Lord was asking, and yet again the Government have failed to answer what is a very straightforward question. They also failed entirely to address the excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, highlighting the difficulties young people are likely to face, and indeed are facing in the current workplace, because of this Bill.

I am afraid that the answers have not alleviated our concerns on these Benches. We entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Burns. It is not just the noble Lord who is obsessed with this; I think the whole House is. If he wishes to press his Motion, we will support him, but, in the meantime, I commend Motion B1 to the House.

Ayes 309, Noes 150.

Motion B1 agreed.