Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak to two specific Lords amendments proposed in turn by Lord Burns and Lord Sharpe in the other place. While addressing different clauses, both amendments essentially come down to the same principle: defending fairness, transparency and democratic legitimacy against narrow sectional interests. On Lords amendment 61, in 2016, after long and at times fraught debate, Parliament reached a carefully constructed settlement on the question of trade union political funds. That settlement was not only fair and balanced but, crucially, was broadly accepted by all sides. The compromise was a simple one: it resulted in new members contributing to a union’s political fund only if that member gave their active, informed consent. In contrast, existing members were left untouched and, importantly, unions were required to remind all members annually of their right to change their decision. This is both a fair and a balanced settlement. It is not a carve-up; it is a genuine compromise. It respected both the collective strength of unions and the personal liberty of individuals. Yet what do we see now? We see a Government seeking to dismantle that settlement, and the result is a return to an era where consent was assumed and where individuals found themselves supporting causes they did not share simply because the rules made it cumbersome to say otherwise. That is not a positive reform; it is regression. In every walk of life—whether a subscription service, an insurance policy, or a mobile phone contract—the public quite properly expect clarity in respect of the terms they are committing to. Why should those standards of fairness be cast aside when it comes to political funds of unions closely bound to the governing party? Lords amendment 62 deals with the threshold for industrial action. Strikes have consequences. We have seen that only in the last week, with transport links across London brought to a standstill, commutes drastically prolonged, and the consequential significant disruption to people’s day-to-day lives. As a former doctor who, I should point out, did not go on strike in years gone by, I have seen at first hand the consequences of medics taking industrial action: operations cancelled; out-patient appointments postponed; and the provision of healthcare delayed. When the livelihoods and wellbeing of citizens up and down this country are so significantly impacted, it is neither unreasonable nor undesirable that such action rests upon a clear majority. The 50% threshold is precisely that safeguard. It serves as a clear assurance that industrial action has broad legitimacy and is not just the preserve of a militant minority. Yet this Government seek to sweep away that protection by voting down this very sensible and considered improvement to the legislation. Both these amendments remind us that democracy depends upon consent, transparency and legitimacy. Those values have been the bedrock of Britain for generations. It would be a poor bargain indeed if they were set aside to placate the financial and political interests of a narrow few.