Government assessment of Strikes Bill classed as “not fit for purpose”

-

On Monday, a government-appointed body gave the government’s impact assessment for its Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill the red card, and said it is “not fit for purpose”. 

The impact assessment is expected to be published imminently, as the Bill begins its passage through the House of Lords.

The Regulatory Policy Committee – a group of independent experts brought together by the Department for Business to examine the impact of regulation on business and civil society – said the government has failed to provide sufficient evidence in its assessment of the legislation and instead relied on assumptions. It slapped a rare “red” rating on the document.

The RPC says: “While the analysis that is included in the IA is clearly set out, the Department makes use of assumptions in the analysis which are not supported by evidence.

HRreview Logo

Get our essential weekday HR news and updates.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Keep up with the latest in HR...
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
Optin_date
This field is hidden when viewing the form

 

“We would expect the Department to provide a more detailed description of the affected sectors and the costs to trade unions alongside secondary legislation. In addition, it is not clear that the IA considers all of the impacts of the new requirements that will be introduced via the Bill.”

The RPC also points out that some of the evidence provided by the government is out of date – with some sources almost a decade old:

“It is not always clear what evidence has been used, or the continued relevance of that which is used (e.g., some sources are almost a decade old), to inform the content of the IA.”

The scrutiny

The RPC has also strongly criticised the government for failing to produce an impact assessment for the Strikes Bill in time.

The independent government watchdog says the Business department “did not follow its own policy for the timely submission of an IA to the RPC for scrutiny, to enable Parliament to consider both the IA and the RPC’s opinion.”

The TUC has accused the government of ducking scrutiny and “shortcutting” normal scrutiny procedures.

If passed, the Minimum Service Levels Bill will mean that when workers democratically and lawfully vote to strike they can be forced to work and sacked if they don’t comply.

The bill gives ministers power to impose new minimum service levels through regulation.

But consultations on how these regulations will work have not been published, and parliamentarians have been given few details on how minimum service levels are intended to operate.

The TUC says the new legislation will “do nothing” to solve the current disputes across the public sector, and “only make matters worse”.

TUC general secretary Paul Nowak said:

“Ministers are trying to keep parliamentarians and the public in the dark about this draconian legislation – which is a direct attack on our fundamental right to strike.

“It is telling that the government’s own independent watchdog has given ministers the red card on this Bill – and labelled it ‘not fit for purpose’.

“Ministers must come clean about the true nature of this nasty Bill. They must not be allowed to duck scrutiny.”

Commenting on far-reaching nature of the Bill, Paul Nowak added: 

“This spiteful legislation would mean that when workers democratically vote to strike, they can be forced to work and sacked if they don’t comply.

“It’s undemocratic, unworkable and almost certainly illegal. And crucially it will likely poison industrial relations and exacerbate disputes rather than help resolve them.

“The government is investing far more time and energy in steamrollering this Bill through parliament than it is on resolving disputes.

“Instead of scheming up new ways to attack the right to strike, ministers should get pay rising across the economy – starting with a decent pay rise for public sector workers.”

Amelia Brand is the Editor for HRreview, and host of the HR in Review podcast series. With a Master’s degree in Legal and Political Theory, her particular interests within HR include employment law, DE&I, and wellbeing within the workplace. Prior to working with HRreview, Amelia was Sub-Editor of a magazine, and Editor of the Environmental Justice Project at University College London, writing and overseeing articles into UCL’s weekly newsletter. Her previous academic work has focused on philosophy, politics and law, with a special focus on how artificial intelligence will feature in the future.

Latest news

Helen Wada: Why engagement initiatives fail without human-centric leadership

Workforce engagement has become a hot topic across the boardroom and beyond, particularly as hybrid working practices have become the norm.

Recruiters warned to move beyond ‘post and pray’ as passive talent overlooked

Employers risk missing most candidates by relying on job boards as hiring methods struggle to deliver quality applicants.

Employment tribunal roundup: Appeal fairness, dismissal reasoning, discrimination tests and religious belief clarified

Decisions examine appeal failures, dismissal reasoning, discrimination claims and religious belief, offering practical guidance on fairness, causation and proportionality.

Fears of AI cheating in hiring ‘overblown’ as employers urged to rethink assessments

Employers may be overstating concerns about AI misuse in recruitment as evidence of candidate manipulation remains limited.
- Advertisement -

More employees use workplace health benefits, but barriers still limit access

Many workers struggle to access employer healthcare support due to confusion, costs and unclear processes.

Gender pay gap in tech widens to nine-year high as AI roles drive salaries

Women in IT earn less as salaries rise faster in male-dominated AI and cybersecurity roles, widening pay differences.

Must read

Dr. Lynda Shaw: You shouldn’t need to pull a sickie to have a mental health day

Businesses need to stop penalizing employees when they legitimately take days off for the good of their mental health, and should even introduce ‘mental health home days’ to encourage loyalty, support and good communication in the workplace, according to cognitive psychologist and business neuroscientist, Dr Lynda Shaw.

Sam Ross: The future of flexible working in the UK

The buzz surrounding the Flexible Working Act having achieved Royal Assent has been hard to miss on LinkedIn and in HR circles, says Sam Ross.
- Advertisement -

You might also likeRELATED
Recommended to you