The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
(Grant Shapps) With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a
statement on industrial action and minimum service levels. Nurses,
paramedics and transport workers are called key workers for a
reason. They truly are the lifeblood of this country; every person
sitting in this Chamber is grateful for the work they do and I know
everyone will agree that we cannot do without them. The Government
will...Request free trial
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial
Strategy ()
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on
industrial action and minimum service levels.
Nurses, paramedics and transport workers are called key workers
for a reason. They truly are the lifeblood of this country; every
person sitting in this Chamber is grateful for the work they do
and I know everyone will agree that we cannot do without them.
The Government will always defend their ability to withdraw their
labour.
However, we also recognise the pressures faced by those working
in the public sector. Yesterday I invited union leaders in for
talks across Government, and I am pleased to say we have seen
some progress. We want to resolve disputes where possible, while
also delivering what is fair and reasonable to the taxpayer. At
the moment, all households are struggling with the repercussions
of high inflation caused by covid and Putin’s barbaric invasion
of Ukraine, and the Government are absolutely focused on tackling
that.
Granting inflation-busting pay deals that step outside of the
independent pay review settlement process is not the sensible way
to proceed and will not provide a fair outcome. We will instead
continue to consult to find meaningful ways forward for the
unions, and work with employers to improve the process and
discuss the evidence that we have now submitted. In the meantime,
the Government also have a duty to protect the public’s access to
essential public services. Although we absolutely believe in the
right to strike, we are duty-bound to protect the lives and
livelihoods of the British people.
The British people need to know that when they have a heart
attack, a stroke or a serious injury, an ambulance will turn up,
and that if they need hospital care, they have access to it. They
need to know not only that those services are available, but that
they can get trains or buses—particularly people who are most
likely to be the least well-off in society.
I thank those at the Royal College of Nursing, who, during their
last strike, worked with health officials at a national level to
ensure that safe levels of cover were in place when they took
industrial action. They kept services such as emergency and acute
care running. They may have disagreed, but they showed that they
could do their protest and withdraw their labour in a reasonable
and mature way. As ever, they put the public first, and we need
all our public services to do the same.
A lack of timely co-operation from the ambulance unions meant
that employers could not reach agreement nationally for minimum
safety levels during recent strikes. Health officials were left
guessing the likely minimum coverage, making contingency planning
almost impossible and putting all our constituents’ lives at
risk. The ambulance strikes planned for tomorrow still do not
have minimum safety levels in place. That will result in patchy
emergency care for British people. This cannot continue.
It is for moments such as this that we are introducing
legislation focusing on blue-light emergency services and on
delivering on our manifesto commitment to secure minimum service
on the railways. I am introducing a Bill that will give the
Government the power to ensure that vital public services will
have to maintain a basic function, by delivering minimum safety
levels to ensure that lives and livelihoods are not lost. We are
looking at six key areas, each of which is critical to keeping
the British people safe and society functioning: health,
education, fire and rescue, transport, border security and
nuclear decommissioning. We do not want to use this legislation,
but we must ensure the safety of the British public. During the
passage of the Bill, we intend to consult on what an adequate
level of coverage looks like in fire, ambulance, and rail
services. For the other sectors covered in the Bill, we hope to
reach minimum service agreements so that we do not have to use
the powers—sectors will be able to come to that position, just as
the nurses have done in recent strikes.
That is a common-sense approach, and we are not the first to
follow it. The legislation will bring us in line with other
modern European countries such as France, Spain, Italy and
Germany, all of which already have these types of rules in place.
Even the International Labour Organisation—the guardian of
workers’ rights around the world to which the TUC itself
subscribes—says that minimum service levels are a proportionate
way of balancing the right to strike with the need to protect the
wider public. The first job of any Government is to keep the
public safe, and unlike other countries, we are not proposing to
ban strikes, but we do need to know that unions will be held to
account.
Opposition Members who object to minimum safety levels will need
to explain to their constituents why, if they had a heart attack,
stroke, or life-threatening illness on a strike day, there were
no minimum safety standards in place—[Interruption.] I can see
that they do not want to hear it, but they will also need to
explain why their leader, the right hon. and learned Member for
Holborn and St Pancras (), has already promised—without
hearing any of these details—to stand in the way of this
legislation and to repeal minimum safety levels, which are in the
interests of their constituents, are in place in every other
mature European democracy and neighbouring country, and would
protect lives and livelihoods in this country. That is the
difference between a Conservative Government who take difficult
decisions to protect the welfare of our nation, and the
Opposition, who too often appear to be in the pay of their union
paymasters. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Speaker
I call the Opposition spokesperson.
1.14pm
(Ashton-under-Lyne)
(Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’
Financial Interests and declare that I am a proud member of a
trade union.
I will start by tackling the Secretary of State’s comments. The
first thing that comes to my mind in this debate and in what the
Secretary of State said is what happened to my constituent Bina,
who waited more than an hour for an ambulance—who died waiting
for an ambulance. That was not on a strike day; it was because of
the disastrous chaos we have in the system under this
Conservative Government. In the past few months, we have seen
ambulance workers go on their first major strike in 30 years, and
the first ever strike in the history of the Royal College of
Nursing. Teachers, pharmacists and civil servants—among
others—are balloting as we speak. His Government offer no
solution because they have caused the problem.
The economic crisis made in Downing Street has left working
people facing an economic emergency of sky-high inflation and
recession. I notice that in his opening statement, the Secretary
of State did not even mention—let alone apologise for—the fact
that the Government crashed the economy. Nobody wants to see
these strikes happen, least of all the workers who lose a day’s
pay. How are the Government responding to a crisis of their own
making? Not with any attempt to reach a serious long-term
solution in the public interest, but by playing politics and
promising yet another sticking plaster.
The Secretary of State claims that he made progress yesterday,
but the read-out from trade union representatives was dismal. Is
there any chance of a deal this year? Where is the consultation
he mentioned for a meaningful way forward, or was that all for
show? That is the implication of his other proposal—his sacking
nurses Bill. It is an outright attack on the fundamental freedom
of British working people. How can he say with a straight face
that this Government will always defend the ability to strike?
Can he tell us whether he stands by his article in The Telegraph
last summer, in which he listed yet more plans to attack that
basic right? Does he deny that he considered banning some key
workers from joining unions at all? So much for levelling up
workers’ rights. Where is the Government’s promised code of
conduct on fire and rehire, and the long-abandoned Employment
Bill that they promised would tackle insecure work?
The Secretary of State goes in one breath from thanking nurses to
sacking them. That is not just insulting but utterly stupid.
There is no common sense about this at all. He says that he
recognises the pressures faced by key workers, but he knows that
the NHS cannot find the nurses it needs to work on the wards, and
that the trains do not run even on non-strike days such is the
shortage of staff, so how can he seriously think that sacking
thousands of key workers will not just plunge our public services
further into crisis? The Transport Secretary admits it will not
work, the Education Secretary does not want it, and the
Government’s own impact assessment finds that it will lead to
more strikes and staff shortages.
The Secretary of State says that he is looking into six key
areas. What do other Ministers think about that? Will they have
to disagree on that, too? He is scraping the barrel with
comparisons to France and Spain, but those countries, which he
claims have these laws on striking, lose vastly more strike days
than Britain. Has he taken any time at all to speak to their
Governments or trade unions to learn any real lessons from
them?
The Secretary of State quotes the International Labour
Organisation—I am surprised that he even knows what it is—but he
will know that the ILO requires compensatory measures and an
independent arbitrator. Are those in his Bill? The ILO also says
that minimum service levels can happen in services only when the
safety of individuals or their health is at stake. That does not
include transport, Border Force or teachers, as he proposes.
Excess deaths are at their highest levels since the pandemic
peak. The public are being put at risk every day because of the
Government’s NHS crisis and staffing shortages. The Secretary of
State is right that his Government’s duty is to protect the
public’s access to essential services, but livelihoods and lives
are already being lost. We all want minimum standards of safety,
service and staffing; it is Ministers who are failing to provide
that. Does he not accept that trade unions and workers already
take steps to protect the public during action? He singles out
ambulance workers. Paramedics agreed to operate life and limb
deals on a trust-by-trust basis, as he knows, to ensure that the
right care continues to be delivered. He should know that service
levels were at 82%, with ambulance workers consistently leaving
the picket lines to make sure that emergency calls were responded
to. He is threatening to rip up that protection, and for
what?
Let us look into what this is really all about: a Government who
are out of ideas, out of time and fast running out of sticking
plasters; a Government who are playing politics with nurses’ and
teachers’ lives because they cannot stomach the co-operation and
negotiation that are needed; and, a Government desperately doing
all they can to distract from their economic emergency. We need
negotiation not legislation, so when is the Minister going to do
his job?
It is almost as if covid and the pressures on the NHS never
occurred, according to the Opposition. I am pretty sure I heard
this straight. It is almost as if Putin did not invade Ukraine,
force up energy prices and force up inflation, and it is almost
as if the right hon. Lady does not think that the rest of Europe
is going through exactly the same thing. I was just reading an
article in The Guardian saying exactly that—that other health
services are experiencing exactly the same problems.
If we are going to have a sensible debate and start working from
the facts and then have a discussion, we ought to acknowledge
that covid and the war in Ukraine have had a huge impact on
health services here and around the world. Then we can go on to
have a sensible conversation about balancing the right to strike.
As I said at the top of my speech, it is a right that we fully
respect and fully endorse. We believe it is part of the
International Labour Organisation’s correct diagnosis of a
working economy that people should be able to withdraw their
labour, but that should not mean withdrawing their labour at the
expense of our constituents’ lives. The right hon. Lady talks
about how the ambulance service, in her words, has been
reasonable and offered back-up on a trust-by-trust basis if
people have heart attacks and strokes, but heart attacks and
strokes do not accept or work to the boundaries of trust borders.
They work nationally, and so to manage the ambulance system, we
need to know that each and every one of our constituents is
protected. To deny and to vote against legislation that brings in
minimum safety levels to help our constituents is to attack their
security and their welfare.
(Bassetlaw) (Con)
With the Opposition completely unable to control their own MPs
and stop them from joining picket lines or to give a straight
answer on whether they support the strikes, we can clearly see
which Members of this House are on the side of the public. Does
my right hon. Friend agree that what we have today are fair and
proportionate measures equivalent to what is already in place in
a number of other European countries, such as France and
Spain?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is worth the House
reflecting on the fact that the police were banned from striking
in 1919, and that agreement has been in place for more than 100
years. It would have been possible for a Minister to come to this
Dispatch Box and say that we would do the same with ambulance
workers and perhaps with firefighters, but that is not what we
are proposing today; we are proposing to bring ourselves in line
with other modern European economies. It makes every bit of sense
to ensure that if strikes are going to occur, our constituents’
lives are protected with minimum safety levels. Frankly, it is
extraordinary that anyone would argue against.
Mr Speaker
I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.
(Kilmarnock and Loudoun)
(SNP)
This Government have already created the most restrictive and
anti-trade union laws in Europe. This new right-wing culture war
stinks, and they are using ambulance cover as a pretext to attack
workers’ rights. It was the Tory membership that gave us a Prime
Minister who tanked the economy overnight, put people’s mortgages
up and gave us high inflation, yet it is the Tories who continue
to demand that public sector workers take the hit to balance the
books.
Everyone can see the irony of the Tories clapping key workers and
now giving them a pay cut and threatening them with the sack for
future action. Does the Secretary of State really think that
ordinary people support Tory plans over the nurses? Does he
realise that the public can see Pat Cullen and Mick Lynch
destroying their arguments and soundbites? Does he understand
that train commuters, who already suffer from appalling service,
will be raging when they find out how much money train companies
are making from strike days, paid for by taxpayers? How much
money has been paid to train companies that could have gone to
workers instead?
It has not been easy for the Scottish Government, but they have
negotiated better pay settlements for Police Scotland, train
crews and NHS workers. It is something that the Royal College of
Nursing would be willing to discuss with the UK Government. Those
actions were commended by the unions, but not even acknowledged
by Labour. There are no ambulance strikes in Scotland, and that
has been done within a fixed budget and negotiations with one
hand tied behind our back. Now, despite working with the unions,
Scotland is to have the same anti-worker or anti-union
legislation imposed on it, against the wishes of the Scottish
Government. It is an imposition made easier by the Labour party
agreeing with the Tories that workers’ rights should remain with
Westminster and not be devolved to Scotland. We do not want to be
part of plans designed to sabotage workers’ rights. This
situation has clearly shown once again that if Scotland is to
become a fairer, more equal country that respects workers’
rights, the only way to do so is to become a normal independent
country.
The hon. Gentleman tries to push the argument that somehow this
legislation will take us out of step with other European
countries, and I have already explained that it is we who are out
of step with what already occurs elsewhere in Europe. If we go
beyond Europe, he will be interested to hear that in Australia,
Canada and many states in America, blue-light strikes, as we
would call them, are banned entirely. We are taking a moderate,
sensible approach. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman
would wholeheartedly support protecting his constituents in that
way. While we are taking lectures from him about how the Scottish
Government handle these things, I could not help noticing that
Scottish primary school teachers are on strike and secondary
teachers go on strike in Scotland on Wednesday.
(North Devon) (Con)
Strikes have a disproportionate impact in rural Britain, where
there are no other modes of public transport. The nearest
alternative hospital may be more than 60 miles away and
ambulances have already travelled far further to get there, and
that is without mentioning the vacancy rates in public services,
which are so high due to our housing crisis. Can my right hon.
Friend confirm how these measures will help support rural
communities?
My hon. Friend is right. These so-called forever strikes, which
have continued for month after month on the railways, are
particularly hurting rural communities. It is easy sometimes for
people to imagine that those affected will just sit at home on
Zoom or Teams and have those conversations. That view of the
world is much easier for someone in a desk job, perhaps in
management. It is much harder for someone in a rural community or
for a hospital porter or cleaner who needs to get to the
hospital. The very people being hurt most by these strikes that
never seem to come to a conclusion on the railways are the
hardest-up in society. This Government will stand behind them
with minimum service levels.
(Wansbeck) (Lab)
One minute the Secretary of State is clapping the key workers,
and the next he is sacking them. What is really behind this
legislation? Only time will tell, but why is he looking to
criminalise the great key workers who brought us through this
pandemic, and whose only crime is to demand decent wages and
terms and conditions, as well as a safe environment for
themselves and the general public?
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is an enthusiastic supporter
of everything that the unions do, and they are an enthusiastic
supporter of the hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] Perhaps not all
of them. But if one of his constituents has a heart attack,
stroke or serious accident on Wednesday, I do not understand why
he would seriously have an objection to a national level of
agreed safe services? That is what we propose and I am surprised
that he would vote against the safety of his own
constituents.
Sir (New Forest East) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend try to impress on Opposition Members,
who keep referring to this as an anti-union measure, that public
support for the unions will be endangered if they do not preserve
minimum services for people whose lives are at risk?
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We are trying to
correct a problem that is very current. Ambulance workers and the
unions have not provided a national level of guaranteed safety
for the strike that is due on Wednesday. Right hon. and hon.
Members on the Opposition Benches could help us get that in place
across the economy, particularly in vital services, so that even
though we take this primary power, we never need to use it. That
would be the ideal solution. Why do they not help us bring safety
to their constituents, which would help both them and the
unions?
(Middlesbrough) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has said that he supports the right to
strike—by banning workers from striking. Does he not see the
ridiculous position he has got himself into? The whole point of
having an assessment of policy is to find out whether it will
work. When the Government are told that their policy is bonkers,
the sensible thing to do is to bin it. Where does he think
declaring war on working people will end?
As I have mentioned a couple of times at the Dispatch Box, the
hon. Gentleman will need to explain his position to his friends
and colleagues in countries as radical as France and Spain, where
they have these rules in place and act already. On the impact
assessment, which is a point that has been made several times,
including from the Opposition Front Bench, the final impact
assessment—which will come through primary legislation, with
secondary legislation in the form of statutory instruments to
bring it into place—is yet to be published, so he is wrong about
that as well. How can anyone seriously argue that guaranteed
rescue by ambulances of somebody who is seriously ill could have
a harmful impact? It is simply beyond belief.
(South Dorset) (Con)
Coming back through Heathrow recently, I spoke to someone who
works there who praised the armed forces for the incredible job
they did covering Border Force, and told me how the process
worked without any problems at all, and what a sad reflection it
was on the public service that they could not do the same thing.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that Opposition Members, the
unions and many who work in the public service seem to have
forgotten that we spent £400 billion safeguarding their jobs,
their futures and their careers?
I pay tribute to the Army, who did fantastic work. The Army has a
no-strike clause already, along with the police. Once this
primary power has been taken, it will be for Secretaries of
State, including the Home Secretary, to determine and consult in
other areas for secondary powers to bring in minimum service
levels. Most people working in the public service are doing a
hugely valuable job. They are trying to do their best, and many
are frustrated by their radical union leaders who often lead them
up the garden path.
(Edinburgh West) (LD)
The right hon. Member asked whether we acknowledge the impact of
covid and Ukraine. Of course we do—we live with it every day. All
our constituents live with it every day. All those working in the
NHS and the ambulance service live with it every day. He says
that the British people need to know that an ambulance will turn
up when they have a heart attack, a stroke or a serious injury,
and that they will have access to hospital care. Does he not
agree that a better way of ensuring that is to deal with the
actual problem: to invest, recruit and retain staff in the NHS
and the ambulance service, and provide the service that is being
cried out for not just by us but by those people? Rather than
tinkering about with what cannot solve the problem, fixing it
might be a better way.
The hon. Lady is right in the sense that we have seen huge
backlogs because of covid. We are hiring a lot more nurses as a
result—thousands more since 2019. We are also funding the
healthcare system more than ever in history with some £168
billion. As the Prime Minister described in his speech last week,
bringing down those waiting lists is his No. 1 priority. We are
doing all those things as well, but it is undeniable that not
having a minimum safety level in place during strike days puts
lives at risk. This Government will take the responsible decision
to prevent that from happening in future.
(Ashfield) (Con)
It is important to remember that public sector workers are
employed and paid for by the great British taxpayer. I sympathise
with some of their demands, but does my right hon. Friend agree
that their first loyalty should be to the British taxpayer, not
some power-crazed union barons who fund the Labour party and
have, in the past, paid off Labour MPs’ mortgages?
I pay tribute to those in the NHS: there is a very good reason
why, when the public sector in this country got a zero pay rise
last year because of covid, over 1 million people in the NHS did
receive a pay rise. At the moment it is worth about £1,400 per
individual. I appreciate that in these times, with Putin’s evil
war and the impact that has had on inflation, everyone would like
more money as a pay rise, but the Government must consider what
that would do to people’s taxes, to interest rates and to
mortgage rates. We would get into a circle where we are never
able to get inflation down. Inflation is the biggest evil of all.
We are taking sensible steps to address it. That lot over there
simply want to roll over and not address the difficult
problems.
(York Central)
(Lab/Co-op)
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial
Interests.
With the Royal College of Emergency Medicine highlighting more
than 300 excess deaths every single week, where is the
Government’s minimum service level agreement to the public? The
best way to avert a strike is to negotiate. Within the Secretary
of State’s legislation, what obligations will there be on
Government to enter meaningful negotiations, and how does he
describe “meaningful”?
I want to pick up the hon. Lady on those figures, because the NHS
itself says that it does not recognise those numbers. When we
have a strike such as the one on Wednesday by ambulance workers,
there is no way that she or anyone else in this House can
realistically argue that people will somehow be better off
without a national minimum safe level of service. That is what we
will focus on, and that is why she and Opposition Members should
support this Bill.
(Newbury) (Con)
My right hon. Friend was right to mention other European
countries, but he could have added to that list South Africa,
Argentina, Australia and Canada, all of which are members of the
International Labour Organisation and have minimum service levels
in essential services. In every single case, the ILO has reviewed
the MSL and determined it to be a necessary and proportionate
restriction of the article 11 right to strike. Does my right hon.
Friend agree that the British people are entitled to exactly the
same lawful protection and to have their basic needs met at times
of industrial action in essential services?
It is worth reminding the House that my hon. Friend is an
acknowledged expert in employment law. I am grateful for her
thoughts and clarification that the International Labour
Organisation says that the legislation is compatible with article
11. I have been able to sign off the European Court of Human
Rights compatibility on this measure. As she rightly points out,
it is not just friends and neighbours in Europe but around the
world where strikes are, in many cases, banned—not what we are
proposing—and minimum safety levels are in place. There is
nothing illegitimate about what we are doing. It fits with the
ILO, and who signs up to the ILO? The TUC and many other unions
besides.
(Glasgow South West)
(SNP)
Every single concern that the Secretary of State and all those on
the Government Benches have raised so far is already covered by
existing legislation, because trade unions are legally obliged to
provide life and limb cover. That is the existing law. Will the
Secretary of State tell us what the difference is between that
and his proposed legislation? That will be the test of whether
the new legislation is an attack on workers.
The hon. Gentleman raises a good point, which I am pleased to
answer. When strikes are taking place tomorrow and we are not
able to get a simple answer to the question of what the national
level of emergency cover will be for people in the most urgent
situations—heart attacks, strokes and other life-threatening
ailments—that is why we need minimum safety levels. When for
many, many months, some of the poorest in society have been
unable to go to work to earn their own living, perhaps as a
cleaner or a hospital porter, that is why we need minimum service
levels on our railways. I very much hope he will see the point
and help to represent his constituents who are being prevented
from earning money or, indeed, from being safe, should they have
an accident tomorrow.
(Cities of London and
Westminster) (Con)
Last week I met Daniel Jobsz, who runs the Wardrobe Bar and
Kitchen in the City. He did not open last week; he said there was
no point, because of the rail strike. Before Christmas, he lost
tens of thousands of pounds because people were cancelling, as
they could not come into central London because of the rail
strike. UKHospitality calculates that around £1 billion of
business was lost in central London because of the rail strikes.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while it is right to
protect the right to strike, there must be legislation in place
to protect businesses in other sectors, such as hospitality, and
to protect workers from job losses?
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and it brings me on to
an important consideration, which is the disparity between the
public sector settlements on offer and the average in the private
sector at the moment, which has typically been lower. It is right
that, as a responsible Government, we have to balance off all
these different considerations across the economy. It is right
that we consider those running small businesses—tea rooms, pubs
and the services sector—in this balance, which is why minimum
service levels, as well as minimum safety levels, are right for
this economy.
(Leeds East) (Lab)
I have listened carefully to what the Secretary of State has had
to say, and however he tries to dress it up, this is part of an
alarming authoritarian drift. We have an attack on the democratic
right to strike, an attack on the democratic right to vote
through attempted vote rigging, with the introduction of voter
ID, and an attack on the democratic right to peaceful protest. Is
the Secretary of State not ashamed to be a member of the most
authoritarian Government in Britain in living memory?
I have heard some stuff at this Dispatch Box, but the idea that
this is the most authoritarian Government—has the hon. Gentleman
seen what happens in truly authoritarian states, particularly in
Marxist states? It is a ludicrous claim about British democracy.
Actually, he can help, with his many union links, because all we
are saying is that we will take powers to ensure that the minimum
safety level exists. We are saying at the same time that we do
not need to use these powers; we simply need to get agreement for
his constituents and for all our constituents that on a strike
day, an ambulance will be able to turn up because national levels
have been agreed. That is it, and he should get on board and
support this.
(Guildford) (Con)
Last week, rail users in Guildford trying to get in and out of
the constituency, including key workers, were completely cut off
because there were zero trains. At no point have the Opposition
condemned widespread strike action that disrupts the public. Will
my right hon. Friend join me in asking the Opposition to back the
measures we are putting forward, to keep the public safe and to
keep our economy going and growing?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are on the side of people
who are working hard, who are trying to get on with their lives
and livelihoods, and who are concerned about their lives when it
comes to emergency services. Who are Opposition Members
interested in? Not once have I heard them condemn these strikes,
which have been inflicted on people’s lives month after month—not
a word from the Opposition. When we try to bring in even the most
moderate and considerate legislation, which simply says that we
will ask for a minimum safety level, what do they do? They object
to it and attack their own constituents in the process.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
Order. May I gently remind Members that Mr Speaker has determined
that anybody who came in five minutes after the start of the
session will not be called?
(Foyle) (SDLP)
I know that the Secretary of State likes to fly around in his own
private plane, but I can tell him for a fact that while he has
been doing that, many nurses in my constituency have been
accessing food banks. This Government seem very uncomfortable
with nurses standing on picket lines but totally relaxed about
them lining up to get food for their families at food banks. If
this Government are serious about stopping the strikes, surely
now is the time to pay these essential workers properly.
I would be interested to hear from those on the Labour Front
Bench whether it is their policy to pay a 19% pay rise and, if
so, whether they can explain how they will raise the extra money.
Will it be extra taxation? Will they be putting it on borrowing,
with all the hikes in interest rates, mortgage rates, car loans
and the rest of it that that would bring? That is the question
they need to answer, and the more they waffle around the subject,
rather than bringing forward serious measures to limit the impact
of these strikes at the most serious point—the life and death
point—the less they will get the respect of the general
public.
(Buckingham) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to bring forward these
proportionate measures, and not least in the urgency with which
he seeks to protect the safety and lives of all our constituents
at risk from strike action. Children have suffered in these
strikes; many children in Buckinghamshire use the railways to get
to school. Does he agree that when the consultation comes
forward, the ability of children to get to school on the railways
must be included in the minimum service levels?
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We have talked about
workers getting to work and people losing their salaries because
of these strikes, but children and their education are also being
impacted. That is a crying shame, particularly after two years of
covid and having to study from home, and now they are being put
through this again when there is a decent offer on the table for
the railways. When union bosses have actually put this offer to
their members—the Transport Salaried Staffs Association, for
example—they accepted it, and it was a very similar offer to the
ones that the RMT and other unions refuse to put to their
members. We just need some common sense from these unions and, I
hope, a little pushing from Opposition Members.
(Islington North) (Ind)
Can the Secretary of State not just for once acknowledge the
stress levels of workers—postal workers, rail workers, health
workers and teachers—who have had 10 years of frozen pay and 10
years of reducing living standards and are going through enormous
stress at work, with many leaving the teaching and nursing
professions as a result of it? Nobody is likely to vote to take
strike action unless it is an act of desperation; they do it
because they want to get decent pay for themselves, their loved
ones and their families. Can he not for once face the issue of
the poverty that people face, rather than trying to bring in
draconian laws to prevent people from taking effective action to
remedy the injustice that they are facing?
It is obviously not true that there has been a pay freeze for 10
years. The right hon. Gentleman stands there and makes that
claim, but as I just mentioned, because the NHS was under huge
pressure during covid, 1.2 million nurses and workers in the NHS
were provided with an uplift of £1,200 last year, with £1,400
proposed this year—at the time, inflation was low—even though the
rest of the public sector was not receiving pay increases. He
talks about stress for public sector workers, and I recognise the
hard work and the hours that they put in, particularly in the
NHS, which is why we have expanded by many thousands the number
of nurses, for example, but what about the stress for people who
cannot get to work because of these strikes and have not been
able to for months? What about the stress for people who are
waiting for an ambulance when we do not have nationally agreed
safety levels in place? That is the stress I am also worried
about.
(West Dorset) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that when unions such as the RMT
reduce their customary referendum period from 14 to six days to
force through a false ballot result to strike and then go to
strike straightaway, against what are necessarily the wishes of
all members, this is an important statement to make and an
important piece of legislation? Will he confirm how promptly he
will bring forward this Bill?
The Bill is being introduced today. My hon. Friend is absolutely
right about this. We have seen that the RMT has not put the
offers to its members, which, as I mentioned before, is a real
problem. When the TSSA put an almost identical offer to its
members, it was accepted and the strike was therefore over. Any
attempt not to allow members to see the full range of what is
being offered is wrong. Because members have not seen the full
offer, they will be unaware of the different elements of that
offer. It has not been formally put to them—that is something the
unions can change immediately. I very much hope that they do
so.
(Edinburgh South West)
(SNP)
I noticed a moment ago that the Secretary of State said that
striking workers were in danger of pushing up interest rates. I
remind him that many of those people are on strike because they
cannot afford their mortgages or rent as a result of the hike in
interest rates caused by his colleagues’ economic incompetence. I
imagine that many essential workers are in receipt of the sort of
wage that the Secretary of State would not get out of bed for in
the morning.
On the legality of the legislation, the TUC general secretary has
said that forcing workers who have democratically voted to strike
to work and sacking them if they do not comply would almost
certainly be illegal. Is that not right? Can the Minister really
say that the detail of his Bill will comply in every respect with
the United Kingdom Government’s obligations under both the ECHR
and international labour law? On the detail, Minister, what is
the position?
I do not know whether I am correcting myself or the hon. and
learned Lady, but I was not saying—I did not mean to say, at
least—that striking workers pushed up interest rates. It is
inflation that pushes up interest rates. If we paid a 19%
increase across the economy, we would have to borrow the money;
we would then have more borrowing and more debt and, therefore,
higher interest rates. Everybody would pay more on their
mortgages and car loans. Businesses would pay more. That is the
quite simple maths that I would have thought we have tested to
destruction. It would not make sense to go ahead along those
lines.
The hon. and learned Lady asked specifically about the ECHR, and
I can confirm that the Bill is ECHR-compliant. My hon. Friend the
Member for Newbury (), who is no longer in her
place, talked about employment law and how the Bill fits with the
ILO and the ECHR; I have been able to sign that declaration. I
can further confirm that there is proof of this, as many
neighbouring countries already do exactly the same thing, which
is also compliant with the ECHR.
(Stoke-on-Trent North)
(Con)
I proudly put on the record my entry on the Register of Members’
Financial Interests as a former teacher and a former trade union
member and representative for the NASUWT. I am very worried
seeing teachers going on strike, because it is the pupils who
will suffer most, particularly disadvantaged pupils from areas
such as Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke. While I am a
huge admirer of the incredible work that teachers do, they are
sadly being cajoled out of the classroom by baron bosses in
unions such as the “Not Education Union”, led by Bolshevik
Bousted and Commie Courtney, along with their Labour mates, to
make sure that kids continue to suffer. What can we do to ensure
pupils will not be victims any further?
Minimum levels of service in education and elsewhere will of
course help. Again, I want to stress to the House that we do not
necessarily want or wish to introduce legislation in all these
areas; that will be a matter for the House in secondary
legislation and for further consultation. I very much hope,
though, that this legislation gives the unions and some of their
supporters in this House the opportunity to stop and think about
whether minimum safety is appropriate in their particular areas.
I very much hope that teachers will hold back from the threshold
of strikes, which would be damaging to them and to pupils.
(Coventry South) (Lab)
Nurses’ pay down 20%, teachers’ pay down 20%, firefighters’ pay
down 12%, junior doctors’ pay down 26%—these are the consequences
of 13 years of Tory rule. Let us be honest and talk about the
real problem here: it is not workers going on strike, but the
Tory Government and the economy they have built, which forcers
workers to strike. This new anti-worker law would make things
even worse, sacking teachers and nurses for striking for fair
pay. Surely the easiest, safest and fairest way of guaranteeing
minimum service provision is to pay nurses, firefighters and
paramedics a decent wage with good conditions and the resources
to do their jobs. Why will the Secretary of State not do that
instead?
The hon. Lady might want to inquire of Members on her Front
Bench—most of them are gone now, but one or two are still
here—whether they would support a 19% pay increase. If they
would, nice as that would be to do, how would they explain it to
their constituents and to the financial markets as interest rates
rise? If they would spread that across the entire economy, what
would the impact be on the economy at large? Those are the simple
but, unfortunately, difficult decisions that need to be made in
government. Frankly, Labour’s failure to answer those basic
questions is why it is not ready to run this country.
(Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is not often I get called to
speak before halfway through, but I am very pleased to have been
called. The sentiments expressed inside this Chamber about
seeking a solution do not appear to match the negotiations
outside of it. As the Secretary of State will know, for many NHS
staff, this is about not just money, but safety on the wards.
Many nurses have stated that they would be happy with additional
staff to lighten the load along with a modest pay rise to cover
the cost of living. Will the Secretary of State indicate what
assessment has been made of safety on the wards in the light of
ongoing action? Will the Secretary of State guarantee safety and
a cost of living wage increase?
Of course, one reason that we have employed tens of thousands
more nurses and doctors is to help to relieve the pressure post
covid. We all understand that, given what happened with covid and
what is now happening with flu, which is the worst it has been
for 10 years, we are seeing particularly strong pressures on our
hospitals. The point I am making today is that none of this is
helped by the uncertainty. It is fine for workers to withdraw
their labour—it is obviously a last resort, but we understand
it—but please, give us an indication or a guarantee of where the
safety level will be, and do so on a nationwide basis. In
fairness to the Royal College of Nursing, it has done that. The
ambulance unions, I am afraid, have not. We invite them to do
so.
(Slough) (Lab)
The Government’s failed industrial relations approach has led to
the worst strikes in decades. Sadly, they have often sought to
scupper talks by throwing in last-minute spanners. Now, they
propose going from clapping nurses to sacking nurses. The
Secretary of State will be aware that the Transport Strikes
(Minimum Service Levels) Bill’s impact assessment stated that
imposing minimum service levels could actually lead to an
“increased frequency of strikes”. What exactly has changed in the
past two months since that was published?
First of all, no one is talking about sacking nurses. I have just
checked the figures: we have more than 44,000 more nurses since
2010, and more than 34,000 more doctors. There has been a big
increase even from 2019. Nothing in the Bill we are announcing
today is about getting rid of nurses, any more than any
employment contract has to be followed. It is worth remembering
that the pay that is on offer is as a result of the independent
pay review body—bodies that the unions themselves called to be
set up 20 years ago—being put into action.
I have heard union bosses make the point about last-minute
spanners, which is completely untrue. I seem to be living rent
free in Mick Lynch’s head at the moment—I have not even been
close to these negotiations. The deal on the table is the same
discussion that has always been there. Rather than parroting
those lines, the hon. Gentleman might do better to check the
facts and encourage the unions to put these offers to their
members.
(Glasgow East) (SNP)
When the Tory party spoke about taking back control, none of us
thought that would mean suppressing votes with voter ID
legislation, a policing and crime Act that curbs the right to
protest, a House of Lords with unelected clerics and a Government
who are withdrawing the basic fundamental human right to strike.
How much longer will this Government continue to claim that this
silly little island is a functioning democracy?
I am pretty sure the hon. Gentleman has been in the Chamber from
the beginning, otherwise you would not have called him to speak,
Mr Deputy Speaker. He will therefore have heard me say, not once
or twice but three times now, that this legislation is compatible
with the International Labour Organisation rules that the unions
themselves sign up to and many of our European neighbours follow.
I am struggling to follow the hon. Gentleman’s argument that this
is somehow unfair, undemocratic or against international law.
Dame (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
From the way the Secretary of State is speaking, one might think
he is the knight on a white charger coming to rescue the system.
Let us be clear, however, that it was this Government who froze
pay in the public sector and then increased it below inflation,
and this Government who reduced recruitment in the national
health service, particularly among nurses, where we have a
recruitment gap of 40,000. What we are actually hearing is
chickens coming home to roost, isn’t it? He ought to take
responsibility as a Minister in this Government.
I simply make the point that it is not the case that we have
frozen recruitment, because we have 44,000 more nurses, not
fewer—that is an increase rather than a decrease. It is also not
the case that we have frozen pay, other than during the aftermath
of the financial crash, which as I recall happened under the
Labour party and we had to pick up the pieces, and through covid,
although not all the way through covid, as I mentioned. Last
year, even while the rest of the public sector was experiencing a
pay freeze, we made an exception for NHS workers and paid them
more, so the hon. Lady’s narrative is simply not true. Again, if
the Opposition are saying that they would pay 19% more, I do not
understand where that money would come from and whose taxes would
be raised to pay for it and the increased interest rates.
(Ilford South) (Lab)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of
Members’ Financial Interests. It is astonishing: I did not
realise that, when we were making the comparison with France and
Spain, we were talking about Franco’s Spain and the Vichy regime
in France. Many elements of the laws in this country already do
not comply with ILO regulations; we are one of the most
restrictive anti-worker countries in the world—that is a
fact.
I and my constituents would like the Government to stop blowing
up the talks with the trade unions, as they did against the NHS
over the weekend, with Unite reps coming out of that meeting in a
worse state, or against the RMT by dropping driver-only operation
into the talks. The Government could end the strikes in multiple
sectors; instead they have upped the ante to wage war on working
people who are suffering because of their rancid governance.
At least we know where the hon. Gentleman stands: against the
instructions of his Front Bench, it is on the picket lines. He is
one of the people who has helped to extend the rail strikes.
Driver-only operation has been in there from the outset and there
has been no change in that at all. It makes perfect sense and
operates on the line that my constituency is on. It causes no
problems and is a safe way to operate. It is the kind of
modernisation that would help to bring this industrial dispute to
a close. I did not follow his point about Franco and the Vichy
Government. Spain and France have moved on a bit from that and
seem to manage to have minimum safe levels of service on strike
days under the International Labour Organisation.
(Upper Bann) (DUP)
The Secretary of State opened his statement with warm words about
our key workers, but he will be acutely aware that the longer the
Government refuse to address their fair pay demands, the more
staff morale will be depleted and the more people will leave the
service, which will exacerbate the staffing crisis that the
unions have highlighted as part of their demands. Does he not see
that standing there and lecturing about safe staffing levels when
healthcare workers across the UK are saying that staffing levels
are unsafe is frankly ridiculous? The way to ensure staffing at
all times is to pay our healthcare workers properly.
Of course we want to see healthcare workers paid, and I meant the
words that I used at the top of the statement. Hon. Members will
remember that my father was ill during covid, so I experienced
the NHS at its best and most heroic while it was struggling to
serve people under almost unbelievable pandemic circumstances. I
absolutely agree with her about the incredible work that NHS
staff do. There is a pay offer on the table that has not been
invented by the Government—it has come from the independent pay
review body. The Government have accepted in full and in every
circumstance the recommendations of the independent pay review
bodies this year. Those who say that we should ignore the
independent pay review bodies need to explain why and where they
will find the money to do that so that it is fair to other
taxpayers.
(Wirral West) (Lab)
This statement is an attack on fundamental employment rights.
More than 12 years of Conservative Government failure to invest
in vital public services has led to nurses, ambulance crews,
civil servants and transport workers taking industrial action. I
stand in solidarity with them. If the Government wanted to
protect the levels of public services, they would give them the
funding and staffing that they need instead of running them down.
Why are the Government determined to run down our public services
and national health service? Why will Ministers not engage in
proper negotiations to end the disputes?
In the politest possible way, I think that once we have been
going for an hour, some of the questions that were written in
advance and possibly even handed out by the unions have been
categorically disproved—as I have explained many times, this is
not against international law or the ECHR, for all the reasons
that I have already covered—but they continue to be read out as
if they are a new contribution. Those questions ignore the basic
fact that there is another side to the issue, which is the safety
of the hon. Lady’s constituents and ours. Tomorrow, when there is
an ambulance strike and the unions refuse to commit to national
safety levels with the management of the trusts, everyone’s life
will be more at risk than it should be. It is perfectly
reasonable to introduce what happens throughout much of the rest
of the world, and certainly our European neighbours, and to have
minimum safety standards in place so that we can protect the
public.
(City of Durham) (Lab)
The Government intend to use minimum service levels to force
workers to work against their wishes, which undermines their
legitimate disputes and imposes servitude on workers. The safest
level of provision is to pay our firefighters, nurses, teachers,
paramedics and rail staff a proper decent wage and to give them
the appropriate resources to do their jobs effectively. Why does
the Secretary of State need a new law to help the Government to
effectively drive down the wages of the key workers in vital
services who he clapped during the pandemic?
The hon. Lady described people as working in “servitude” if there
are minimum service levels, but I point out to her that they
would be paid for that servitude. At Network Rail, the average
worker is on £46,000 of servitude and the average is £62,000 of
servitude for train drivers. If we are going to have a serious
debate about minimum service levels, I should say that they are
designed to ensure that school kids can get to school again; that
office workers, who may be on lower pay, can get to their job;
and that the constituents of Members across the House can be
guaranteed minimum safety levels during a strike tomorrow. The
idea that that is somehow enforcing servitude is absolute
nonsense.
(Liverpool, Wavertree)
(Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’
Financial Interests. Government Members talk about hard-working
members of the public, but will the Secretary of State
acknowledge that trade union members are also hard-working
members of the public? Will he confirm whether the reported £320
million has been paid to the train operators during these strikes
because they are indemnified? How much of that £320 million would
it have taken to settle the strikes? We have heard a lot about
safety measures today, so when will the Government stop trying to
force through driver-only operated trains, and when will the NHS
get the workforce strategy that it desperately needs?
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend
the Member for Bexhill and Battle () reminds me that driver-only operated trains were
introduced under the Labour Government. They are entirely safe;
as I mentioned, they operate on my Govia line and I have never
had a single constituent come to me to say otherwise. The hon.
Lady asks whether trade union members are hard-working; I
absolutely agree that they are. Many of them work extraordinary
hours, as I already said, particularly in the health context but
across the economy.
A responsible Government have to balance the pay in the public
sector with the pay in the private sector and across all elements
of the economy, which is why we have the independent pay review
bodies. Unless the Opposition are now trying to destroy the
independent pay review bodies and say that we should ignore them
and go beyond what they say, I do not see a better
alternative.
The hon. Lady fundamentally misunderstands the way that the
railways operate in this country: the receipts are collected and
the train operating companies simply receive the money for
operating the service.
(Paisley and Renfrewshire
North) (SNP)
Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East () and I proudly supported
picketing workers at Glasgow Central. Not only did we not have to
ask for permission, but nobody was photoshopped out of the
photograph. Avanti West Coast and TransPennine can barely deliver
a minimum service as it is. The Smith commission could have
devolved employment rights to ensure that the right to strike was
sacrosanct and fire and rehire was banned, but Labour blocked it.
Mick Lynch has said that Scottish Ministers “want to resolve”
issues, but “politicians down here” want to “exacerbate” them. Is
it not therefore the case that Scottish workers will be fully
protected only with independence?
Well, I never expected that contribution from the SNP Benches. I
should just point out to the hon. Member that I would never
knowingly remove the former Prime Minister, whom I served
enthusiastically, from anything I put out. He makes a point about
Scottish independence, somehow shoehorned into a statement about
minimum safety levels, but his constituents will be among the
first to benefit when there are national strikes and we are able
to run a minimum safe level of service, for example, between
ambulances and the hospitals.
(Birkenhead) (Lab)
The measures outlined today represent a profound attack on the
right of key workers with whom the Government are still in active
negotiation. The Government’s strategy is clear: when they cannot
get what they want through negotiation and compromise, they
simply legislate to get their own way. However, does the
Secretary of State accept that these proposals risk breaching
human rights legislation and potentially even modern day slavery
law? Will he concede that the public interest would be better
served by addressing the legitimate grievances of the nurses,
firefighters, teachers and rail workers who are now in dispute,
rather than by curbing their democratic right to take industrial
action?
How many times—I am going to check the Hansard record
afterwards—do I need to explain that the ILO says itself that it
is perfectly proper to have minimum safety levels in place? Many
of our European neighbours already have that in place. Many other
countries—Australia, Canada, parts of America, South Africa and
elsewhere—actually ban strikes in blue-light services. We ban
them ourselves for the police, but I am not even proposing going
that far. All I am saying is, “Please tell us if you’re going to
withdraw your labour, and let’s agree a minimum safety level.” I
do not think there is anything unreasonable about that
whatsoever, and I have to say that I am shocked that the Labour
party does.
(Denton and Reddish)
(Lab)
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial
Interests as a proud member of the GMB and Unite the union.
The reality is that the Government have refused for months to
discuss pay with nurses, they have failed to avert the transport
strikes and they are now introducing these shoddy plans to
distract from their own failure to negotiate. I know the
Secretary of State said earlier that he does not knowingly erase
the former Prime Minister from his tweets, but that is exactly
what he did recently, so perhaps he should spend less time on
Photoshop and more time on the day job—sitting down and
negotiating.
That was a slightly stretched question, but I think the basis of
it was quite straightforward. As I have mentioned, it makes
perfect sense to have a situation where we can guarantee national
minimum safety standards for our constituents, and I am
interested in what the hon. Gentleman would say to his
constituents tomorrow when they may or may not be able to call an
ambulance, depending on the trust he is in, about the failure to
support such standards. I do not think his constituents should
suffer from a postcode lottery, and I am prepared to legislate to
make sure that does not happen, even if he does not want it.
(Glenrothes) (SNP)
In the five years I had the privilege of leading the third
largest council in Scotland with a workforce of 20,000, we had
our share of industrial disputes. Every single time the unions
came to us well in advance, and they told us what parts of
services they wanted to exempt from industrial action, because
they cared as much for the welfare of vulnerable people as we
did. Is it not the case that if the Government cared half as much
about education as teachers do, if they cared half as much about
the health service as nurses and ambulance drivers do, and if
they cared half as much for a decent public transport service as
train drivers do, this bullyboy legislation would not be needed?
The enemies of the health service are not on the picket line;
they are on the Government Front Bench.
SNP Members make it sound as if they did not have any industrial
strife. I think it is fantastic if the unions and the management
get together to resolve these things—that is exactly what we want
to see happen—but the reality is that, where it does not happen,
strikes evolve sometimes. This legislation is about making sure
those strikes are less damaging, particularly when it comes to
people’s health and the security of the nation. The hon. Member
makes his point as if they do not have strikes in primary schools
and as if secondary schools in Scotland, where this is devolved,
are not going on strike on Wednesday. The reality is that
sometimes strikes do break out and, when they do, we want to make
sure the public are properly protected.
(Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Just before Christmas, I went to the ambulance station in
Warrington, which is in the North West Ambulance Service NHS
Trust. I spoke to workers there who have withdrawn their
labour—paramedics, ambulance workers. They have done that with a
heavy heart and as a last resort. They have done that because
they are fighting for a fair deal, because their mortgages have
gone up and the food bills have gone up. By the way, while I was
there, they were providing a minimum level of service—I saw the
ambulances going out, and rightly so, to deal with critical care
incidents—so the current arrangements actually facilitate that.
This is very un-British: it is a fundamental attack on the
democratic right to withdraw one’s labour. How many teachers are
going to be sacked, how many ambulance workers are going to be
sacked, how many social workers are going to be sacked and how
many rail workers will be sacked for standing up for their right
to strike and withdraw their labour?
The answer to the question is none. I have not seen a single
police officer sacked or a member of the Army sacked, and they
have no-strike deals. We are not proposing no-strike deals here;
we are simply saying, I think very reasonably, that the level of
emergency service provided by the fantastic workers—and I accept
what the hon. Member said about people going on strike with a
heavy heart—in his particular ambulance trust should be provided
to all Members across the House, no matter where they are. In the
case tomorrow, the union has failed to agree that with the
management. I rather hope that he and Members on the Opposition
Front Bench will join us in persuading people to provide that
minimum safety level. If not, they will need to explain to their
constituents why they are failing to vote to support the safety
and security of their own constituents’ lives.
(Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of
Members’ Financial Interests as a proud member of Unite and the
GMB trade unions.
During the pandemic, my constituents and I stood on our doorsteps
and clapped our key workers—we clapped the nurses at the Royal
Lancaster Infirmary and the Blackpool Victoria, and we clapped
the postal workers working out of our delivery offices in
Lancaster, Fleetwood and Garstang—and now this Government are
putting more effort into putting those workers’ jobs at risk than
into trying to resolve the strikes. It is clear that the
Secretary of State is obsessed about the ongoing strikes. I can
assure him that many of the workers who are losing days and days
of pay are upset, too. Can I try to help him and suggest that he
puts more effort into sitting down with trade unions and finding
a resolution than into trying to stamp on workers’ rights?
As the hon. Lady will know, various different unions have been
invited in, there have been discussions across the different
sectors and we are doing everything we can to encourage a
settlement. I do need to gently point out to Opposition Members
that this is not a Government who have ignored the independent
pay review bodies, come up with our own number and, say, halved
the amount of money that was suggested should be paid. We have
actually accepted in full the recommendations of those
independent pay review bodies, so we are actually following the
science and following the evidence. She is wrong to suggest, and
to continue frightening people by saying, that their jobs could
be at risk. Nobody’s job is at risk. I have already explained
that we are hiring more, particularly nurses and doctors, and
this legislation will simply say that, if we cannot get there
voluntarily across the country—not just, for example, in the
constituency of the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (), but everywhere—we will
have legislative power to make sure we are able to require
minimum safety levels for everybody, not just some.
(Glasgow Central)
(SNP)
Teaching staff at my daughter’s school are on strike today and
staff at my son’s school are on strike tomorrow, and I fully
support their right to do so. We all know the Scottish
Government’s budget is constrained, having been short-changed and
underfunded in the face of soaring inflation. What discussions
has the Secretary of State had with the Chancellor to ensure a
fair funding settlement for the Scottish Government so that
Scottish public sector workers can get the pay rise they deserve
to deal with the Tory cost of living crisis?
All of us want our kids to be able to get to school, and the
example in Scotland demonstrates that strikes occur regardless of
who is in power at a particular moment, but the hon. Member and
those on the Opposition Front Bench are wrong to suggest this is
a UK problem that does not affect other parts of the world,
because exactly the opposite is the case. We are in this
situation and have this level of inflation because of the war in
Ukraine, because Putin illegally invaded his neighbours’ country,
because it pushed up energy prices, and because that pushed up
inflation. It makes all of us poorer when that happens. If
Members think the solution is simply not to worry while people’s
livelihoods and safety are put at risk, that will be up to them
to decide when they vote. This party will be voting to ensure
people’s security and safety no matter which strikes come
next.
(Jarrow) (Lab)
The Minister’s proposals criminalise workers for taking action in
legitimate disputes, threatening to turn the clock back on
workers’ rights by 200 years. The Tolpuddle martyrs were
criminalised for withdrawing their labour and deported to
Australia, as were the seven men of Jarrow for protesting about
their working conditions. These proposals would see NHS,
education and other key workers sacked for the same crime.
Workers need a pay rise, not a P45. When will Ministers put our
country first and invest in, not attack, key workers?
The hon. Lady is wrong on several fronts. First, it cannot be
criminal if in fact that is a law that this House has passed.
Secondly, it is no more criminal than breaching an employment
contract; that is the level of, as she describes it, criminality.
Is this going to be the line—is this how they are going to
explain things to their constituents on the doorsteps over the
next few days or weeks when ambulances are not necessarily going
to turn up in one area and may in another? If their only answer
is, “We didn’t think we should put in place the same measures
that exist in countries such as France, Spain and Italy,” may I
suggest that, rather than raving on about criminalisation, which
is utter nonsense—nobody is criminalising anything— she simply
agrees that minimum safety levels are a proportionate, sensible
and modern way to go about things and she should support
that?
(Cynon Valley) (Lab)
As the TUC says, public sector workers have experienced the
longest pay squeeze in 200 years, with workers losing out on
£20,000-worth of wages due to pay not keeping up with prices
since 2008. Now, when we are experiencing historically high
inflation, the Government want to both reduce real-terms pay and
legislate to enforce it. Is it not the case that the Government
are proposing yet another authoritarian, draconian act to enforce
their attack on our living standards?
The questions from Labour Members have remained remarkably
consistent throughout, and I am not sure whether they have been
handed out by their Front Bench or their union paymasters. But
the fundamental facts are that the independent pay review bodies
decide on the level of pay and the Government have accepted that
in full. If these questions are being handed out by Labour Front
Benchers, they will need to explain what they plan to do with the
independent pay review bodies. Are they now going to routinely
ignore their advice, which is not something we have done? Are
they going to tell their constituents that they will not have a
minimum safe level of service if they have a heart attack or a
stroke, or are they going to pay the 19%, in which case they need
to explain to their constituents why their tax is going up, why
inflation is going up further and why interest rates are going up
as well.
|
