A government review that gave the green light to Conservative anti-attack legislation has been condemned as “not fit for purpose” by an official expert panel.
The business department on Tuesday published an “impact assessment” of the Strikes (Minimum Service Level) bill.
The measure, now going through parliament, is designed to prevent the impact of future industrial action on public services by forcing employees in key sectors such as transport and health to stay on the job.
The impact assessment describes the general picture of the legislation, with the conclusion that it will increase public confidence in access to essential services during walking and show the economic benefits that will cause disruption in daily business activities.
But it was slammed by the Regulatory Policy Committee, an independent group of business, academic and legal experts that the government meets to advise on a range of policy proposals.
The RPC described the cost-benefit analysis of the policy as “weak” and “not fit for purpose” in a scathing 10-page report.
The group suggested some of the sources behind the analysis were a decade old, adding that some assumptions had been made without “appropriate evidence and analysis”.
“It’s not always clear what evidence is being used. . . the department should provide a clearer description of what evidence is being used to support its analysis.
The RPC also accused ministers of failing to consider the potential effects on small businesses that need to be aware of the new rules on minimum employment levels.
Angela Rayner, the deputy leader of the Labor Party, described the group’s report as “an appalling judgment by independent experts”.
“Tory ministers have failed to do their due diligence on this poor and unworkable policy, breaking their own rules and providing no evidence for their claims,” he said.
Downing Street said the government was taking a “legitimate approach” to ensure public safety during the walkout, adding: “We think these proposals are not only appropriate but a proportionate response to protect life and health during industrial action.”
The RPC pointed out that although the impact assessment listed similar policies already in place in six other European countries, it failed to include details of the minimum service levels in place or their effectiveness.
Currently, the legislation does not specify exactly how the new rules will be implemented. More specific points, such as the precise minimum level of service required in each sector, require “secondary legislation”.
The RPC said it hoped to see “a more detailed qualitative and quantitative cost-benefit analysis” when the government introduced the secondary legislation.
Tuesday’s impact assessment of the business department admits that the new curbs on walkouts can damage the relationship between unions and employers to the extent that strikes can be held with “increasing frequency”.
It also warned that unions could seek to “maximize their influence” by voting for strike action in draft laws passed by parliament.
But the paper concluded that the results were “highly speculative” and suggested that new “minimum security agreements” (MSAs) could lead to unions settling disputes more quickly, as workers could “get better deals. [from employers] may be unattainable”.