Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill Consideration of Lords
amendments Clause 4 Extent 6.31pm The Parliamentary Under-Secretary
of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake) I beg to move,
That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1. Madam Deputy
Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton) With this it will be convenient to
discuss the following: Lords amendment 2, and Government motion to
disagree. Lords amendment 4, and Government motion to...Request free trial
Strikes (Minimum
Service Levels) Bill
Consideration of Lords amendments
Clause 4
Extent
6.31pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade
()
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment
1.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendment 2, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 4, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 5, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 6, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 7, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 3.
This Bill was introduced with the intention of balancing the
ability to strike with the rights and freedoms of the public, by
applying minimum service levels on strike days to protect the
lives and livelihoods of the public. We should not ignore the
fact that the economic costs of these strikes have been estimated
at around £3 billion, and much of that impact falls on business
sectors that are already facing difficulties, such as the
hospitality sector.
The Bill brings the UK into line with many other countries: Spain
and France have statutory minimum service levels in ambulance
services and they also, along with Belgium, have statutory
minimum service levels in fire services. In some countries, such
as the United States of America, Australia and Canada, some
services are prohibited from taking any strike action altogether.
However, the Government are not suggesting we go that far.
(Kilmarnock and Loudoun)
(SNP)
In the European countries the Minister mentioned where there is
minimum service provision, is it not the case that that minimum
service provision is agreed by negotiation, and that workers
there do not get sacked for striking?
All jurisdictions differ, and the way that minimum service levels
are set differ. Some are set by the Government; we have done
that, through consultation with stakeholders, and we will decide
what the right level of minimum service will be. All
jurisdictions differ somewhat, but the key point is that in many
jurisdictions there are restrictions placed on the ability to
strike.
(Glasgow East) (SNP)
On the issue of stakeholders and jurisdictions, may I turn the
Minister’s attention to the devolved Administrations? The SNP
Scottish Government have been crystal clear in their opposition
to this tawdry piece of legislation. In the interests of the UK
Government’s respect agenda when it comes to the devolved
jurisdictions, why are they ploughing ahead with this Bill that
drives a coach and horses through the fundamental human right to
withdraw one’s labour?
I will deal with that question in a second; it is covered by one
of the Lords amendments that I will speak to, so I will address
it when I come to the element of my speech relating to the
devolved Administrations.
The Bill returns to us with a number of amendments made in the
other place. I would like to be clear that, with the exception of
our own Lords amendment 3, the Government consider the majority
of the changes to be designed to make the Bill either less
effective or entirely ineffective in achieving its aims. The
Government will therefore be disagreeing with those
amendments.
I will speak first to Lords amendment 3, which was tabled by my
colleague in the other place and
provides clarity in respect of the matters to which an employer
must not have regard in respect of trade union membership and
activities when deciding whether to identify a person in a work
notice. The amendment addresses a point raised by the Joint
Committee on Human Rights in its report on the Bill.
(Edinburgh South West)
(SNP)
The Minister and I have had some correspondence about the Bill in
my capacity as Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, but
can he not see that many of the concerns we expressed in our
report on the Bill are echoed by the amendments that the Lords
have brought, and also by organisations such as the TUC and the
Equality and Human Rights Commission? Why is he not giving them
more weight?
At times in life we have to agree to disagree, do we not? The
Government feel that the Bill strikes a balance, but the hon. and
learned Lady does not, and I respect her opinion. I studied
carefully the letter she sent me and I responded to it.
I am not talking about the report of the Joint Committee on Human
Rights alone; I am saying that many of our concerns are widely
supported by other groups such as the EHRC, the TUC and, now, the
majority of their lordships. Will the Minister not reconsider the
response he gave to my Committee’s report?
Of course we have considered those concerns, and we considered
the amendments in the other place. We feel that what we are
proposing with this legislation strikes the right balance. I
fully accept that the hon. and learned Lady disagrees with that
position.
(Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Is it not the case that the Government’s own, belated, impact
assessment suggests that the Bill is ineffective? It is just
unworkable. In fact, I think both the Secretary of State for
Education and the Transport Secretary have said the same. The
Bill will just make matters considerably worse in terms of
industrial relations.
That is not what has been said, and I disagree with that
perspective. The fact that other jurisdictions and other nations
use this approach to making sure there are minimum service levels
to protect the public, their lives and their livelihoods is
indicative that it is the right thing to do. Indeed, as the hon.
Gentleman knows, derogations exist in parts of our public
services that do exactly what we are requiring services to do
with minimum service levels; it is just that they do not work
effectively all the time.
(York Central)
(Lab/Co-op)
The Minister finds himself in an isolated position. At the Health
and Social Care Committee on 9 May, NHS Providers, NHS Employers
and NHS Confederation all said that the Bill was incredibly
unhelpful and that additional legislation could make things more
difficult, rather than improving the situation. Sir Hartley, the chief executive
officer of NHS Providers, said so. Why is the Minister going
against the employers, not just the trade unions?
We do not see that as being the case and we do not agree with
that position. We think the Bill is effective and that it is the
right thing to do to make sure that people can go about their
daily lives unhindered, without fear or concerns about not being
able to access vital public services.
I turn next to Lords amendment 1, which changes the application
of the Bill from the whole of Great Britain to England only. The
amendment would mean that strike action would continue to have
disproportionate impacts on the public in Wales and Scotland. As
the Government have always maintained, the purpose and substance
of the Bill is to regulate employment rights and duties and
industrial relations in specified services. Industrial relations
is clearly a reserved matter and therefore we consider it right
and appropriate to apply the legislation to the whole of Great
Britain.
I also point out that the employer has statutory discretion on
whether to issue a work notice ahead of the strike, specifying
the workforce required to achieve the minimum service level. We
hope that all employers will issue work notices to ensure that
minimum service levels are achieved where it is necessary to do
so. Employers must consider any contractual, public law or other
legal duties that they have.
(Hayes and Harlington)
(Lab)
The Lords passed an extremely sensible amendment asking the
Government simply to consult before they go further with this
legislation. To give an example of why consultation is needed in
my constituency, there is no such thing as a minimum service for
air traffic controllers. In effect, that means that the
Government are barring air traffic controllers from ever taking
industrial action. Those sorts of consultations need to take
place before the Government, as others have said, inflame the
industrial relations climate in this country.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have already consulted.
Those consultations closed around the middle of May. We will
obviously look carefully at all the submissions made; it is
important that we do. Ministers—I have one sat next to me: the
Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the
Member for Bexhill and Battle ()—will make sure that stakeholder submissions are
properly taken into account.
Several hon. Members rose—
I will make some progress. Lords amendment 2 would require a
consultation be carried out and reviewed before use was made of
the power to make regulations setting minimum service levels. The
primary stated motivation for tabling the amendment was to
increase parliamentary scrutiny of the regulations implementing
minimum service levels. Although there may be some merit to the
intentions behind the amendment, it is, in the Government’s view,
duplicative, and would ultimately delay the implementation of the
policy. For those reasons, we disagree with it.
I turn to Lords amendments 4 and 5, and the associated tidying
amendments, Lords amendments 6 and 7. In the Government’s view,
the amendments were tabled to make the Bill inoperable.
(Lewisham East) (Lab)
Will the Minister explain how the legislation complies with all
International Labour Organisation conventions?
We believe that it does. The ILO endorses the use of minimum
service levels to make sure that the provision of public services
is maintained during periods of industrial action. We are happy
with our position on that.
We resist Lords amendments 4 to 7 on the principle that the
Government have a duty to pass effective legislation. It is
regrettable that Opposition Lords have sought to undermine that
principle. Lords amendment 4 would mean that there were no
consequences for a worker who did not comply with a work notice.
The Government disagree with the amendment, as without those
consequences, employers would be powerless to manage instances of
non-compliance, and strikes would continue to have a
disproportionate impact on the public. That would severely
undermine the effectiveness of the legislation. Given that the
amendment would make the Bill ineffective, as I suspect the
Opposition intended, the Government cannot support it.
(Glasgow South West)
(SNP)
It looks as though the unelected House has a better understanding
of what happens in the workplace than the Government do; that
should worry the Minister. Can he name other countries where a
worker could be dismissed in such circumstances?
In some countries, such as those I referred to earlier, strikes
are banned completely for those working for some blue light
services. We already have that situation in the UK for the armed
forces, prison officers and the police. There would be a breach
of contract if people in those positions were to strike.
rose—
I will make progress, if I may. Lords amendment 5 also seeks to
make the Bill inoperable. It would mean that there were no legal
consequences for a union that induced people to go on strike when
they had been identified, through a work notice, as needing to
work, or for a union that failed to take reasonable steps to
ensure that their members complied with work notices. The
amendment would mean that unions had no responsibility for
ensuring that their members did not participate in strike action
and attended work if named in a work notice.
(Isle of Wight) (Con)
Minimum service levels are entirely sensible; it is an idea whose
time has come, and it shows that we support the working people in
this country, unlike the Opposition parties. On the awfulness of
Lords amendment 5, given that we have here the Minister of State,
Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill
and Battle (), I wanted to ask this. Secondary legislation will
be used to decide which industries are to be covered by the
measures. The Bill is particularly targeted at rail, but I would
like at some point to have a conversation with the Minister about
including the Solent ferries. They are truly a lifeline service,
because unless my constituents fancy swimming the Solent, they do
not have an alternative to ferries, whereas people have an
alternative to rail and other services.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. He has raised it
with me offline. I am of course very happy to have a proper
discussion with him about that, and I know that Transport
Ministers would also be happy to.
On making unions responsible for forcing workers to comply with
work notices, does the Minister not understand that unions work
for and on behalf of their members, and reflect their wishes? If
their members wish to go on strike, how is it just or moral to
force unions to make their workers break that strike?
There is a balance to be struck, and what I think is just and
moral is ensuring that public services are maintained. That is
the balance that we are trying to ensure. We are not at all
saying that people cannot strike; we are saying that a minimum
service level should be maintained during the strike.
Lords amendment 5 would mean that there were no consequences for
trade unions that failed to meet their responsibilities. If we
remove the consequences for trade unions that fail to take
reasonable steps, we will be far less likely to achieve minimum
service levels, as trade unions might attempt to persuade workers
not to comply with work notices, and to take strike action
instead.
6.45pm
Everyone has a role to play in ensuring that minimum service
levels are achieved. The approach that the Government have chosen
is fair and proportionate. As with Lords amendment 4, Lords
amendment 5 makes the Bill ineffective, and the Government
disagree with it. We also disagree with Lords amendments 6 and 7,
which are tidying amendments tabled following the passing of
Lords amendment 5.
To close, the Government disagree with all amendments but their
own, for the reasons that I have given. I hope that the other
place will reconsider its amendments and agree to withdraw them,
so that we can, in line with the wishes of the elected House, get
on with rebalancing the rights of workers with the right of the
public to go about their daily life.
(Ashton-under-Lyne)
(Lab)
Let me start by drawing the attention of the House to my entry in
the Register of Members’ Interests, which reflects the fact that
I am a proud trade unionist, and have been for a very long time.
As the Minister outlined, today we return to the Conservatives’
sacking nurses Bill because the other place has reached the same
conclusion as us: this Bill is as unworkable as it is
unnecessary. It is not just an almighty, anti-democratic attack
on working people, but a threadbare Bill that does not stand up
to a shred of scrutiny. Today we consider a number of Lords
amendments.
Let me be clear: Labour Members oppose this Bill in its entirety,
and we stand ready to repeal it when in government. That said, we
thank Members of all parties in the other place who made the
thoughtful and sensible amendments that we are considering
tonight. They do not solve all of the very long list of issues
with this legislation, but they take the sting out of its worst
elements to a significant extent. For that reason, Labour Members
will reject all attempts by the Government to remove the
amendments.
This evening, we will hear a raft of excuses for the Bill, and
for why we cannot uphold the Lords amendments. We will hear that
the Bill is about protecting public safety—well, I don’t know;
there are not many Government Members here and willing to defend
it. We will hear that Government Members all want minimum service
levels all the time, but it is Tory Ministers who are failing to
provide the minimum service levels that we need in our public
services.
(Middlesbrough) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that nurses are taking action in
order to protect patients? We hear continually about cases in
which there are only two nurses on a night shift, trying to
manage a ward of 30 patients. Is that not evidence that nurses
are taking action because they have been pushed to the brink? Are
they not doing the right thing by holding the Government to
account through their actions?
I absolutely agree. I worked alongside my hon. Friend on workers’
rights for many years. I was a care worker for many years, and
had to take industrial action once. People, especially in public
service, do not do that lightly. The nurses’ union took its first
ever industrial action recently. We have seen an unprecedented
amount of strike action, and there is an absolute crisis in
vacancy numbers in our public services because of this
Government. The real risk and danger to public services at the
moment is from this Conservative Government. After 13 years in
office, they have really run down our public services, and they
are not listening to the people who are trying to deliver those
services.
(Edinburgh West) (LD)
Does the right hon. Member agree that one of the most frustrating
things about the Bill, which appears to be totally ineffective,
is that the minimum service levels that it sets out are very
often not met in normal working times?
The hon. Member makes a crucial point, which I was trying to make
to the Minister: on non-strike days, minimum service levels do
not apply at the moment. Many of the people providing our public
services are absolutely screaming at the Government, “We need
more people working in those services. We are having record
vacancies. We are having people leave the profession because of
the mismanagement by this Conservative Government.” Take our fire
and rescue services: how does the closure of 80 fire stations
across the UK keep the public and our brave firefighters safe?
Take our precious NHS: how does having 7.3 million patients left
on waiting lists keep people safe? And take our overstretched
schools: how do record teacher vacancies keep our children
safe?
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Regulatory Policy
Committee’s opinion, published on 21 February, red-rated the
Government’s impact assessment for the Bill as “not fit for
purpose”? Does she agree that, in fact, it is the Government who
are not fit to govern?
I absolutely agree. How will threatening key workers with the
sack in the middle of an unprecedented recruitment and retention
crisis do anything to provide the level of services that the
public deserve?
We will also hear tonight that the Bill brings us into line with
international standards, but what does the Minister have to say
to the ILO’s director general who slammed down the Bill in
January? The Minister did not effectively answer the questions
that were put to him during his opening statement. What does he
say to President Biden’s labour Secretary, who also raised
concerns?
We are going to hear that the Bill is the only way to bring
strikes to a close. We are now in May and there is no end in
sight to the current wave of industrial action, harming the
public, small businesses and, not to mention, the workers who
lose a day’s pay. Might I give the Minister some friendly advice?
Strikes are ended by getting round the table, not by insulting
the very workers who kept the country going during the depths of
the pandemic.
The Bill is one of the most sinister attacks on working people I
have seen, and I speak as a trade unionist, an employer and a
Member of this House. It gives Ministers the power to threaten
every nurse, firefighter, health worker, rail worker or paramedic
with the sack. Other Government Members wanted even more people
to be in scope. I do not think they want anybody anywhere to have
trade union rights in this country. This is being done at their
whim. They have literally gone from clapping nurses to sacking
nurses.
In the words of my noble Friend Baroness O’Grady, Lords amendment
4 is about
“the individual freedoms, dignity and livelihoods of
workers.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 April 2023; Vol.
829, c. 1242.]
Labour is proud to support that amendment. We ask any Government
Member—there are not many of them here—who believes in the right
to protection from unfair dismissal to vote with us tonight.
We also stand by the provision in Lords amendment 4 to require
employers to serve work notices and to prove that individuals
have received them. The Government’s proposal not only threatens
workers, but burdens employers, including our overstretched
public services and small businesses. That only goes to show the
Bill’s complete unworkability and proves the point of all
employers who have condemned it.
The Bill also represents an almighty attack on trade
unions—unions made up of ordinary working men and women. We are
all grown up enough to acknowledge the integral role they play in
our economy and our democracy. I think we can all agree that
attempts to attack their ability to represent their members is
morally, economically and democratically wrong. In its original
form, the Bill would require them to take “reasonable steps” to
ensure compliance work with notices, without any clarity on what
that means. The Government have effectively conceded the flaws in
their drafting of the Bill in their concession on Lords amendment
3. That is welcome, but not enough. The Minister asks us to vote
tonight for vague and unclear wording that gives us no idea of
what they actually require trade unions to do. So we will vote to
keep Lords amendment 5 and by extension, Lords amendments 6 and
7.
The right hon. Lady has not really mentioned Lords amendment 1,
although I note that she said that Labour Members would vote to
retain it, and that is welcome. Given that Lords amendment 1
would limit the territorial extent to England, does that mean
that Labour now recognises the need to fully devolve employment
law to Scotland to completely protect us from Westminster?
We want a Labour Government for the whole United Kingdom, but we
also appreciate Lords amendment 1 and the devolved powers. We
believe in devolution. We were the party of devolution. We were
the ones who gave devolution because we absolutely believe in it,
but we also believe that we need a Labour Government to get rid
of the Conservative Government in Westminster so that we can
change the whole United Kingdom for the better.
Another one of the most troubling aspects of the Bill has been
the profound lack of scrutiny. The Bill presents the Secretary of
State with huge and unchecked powers to set, impose and police
minimum service levels and to amend, repeal and revoke primary
legislation. This is about not just laws that the Government
already have passed, but even those we pass in the future, yet we
have no real idea why they would need that power nor how they
intend to use it.
Where there has been measly scrutiny, the wide-ranging consensus
has been that the Bill is a total disaster. The Regulatory Policy
Committee called it “not fit for purpose”. The Equality and Human
Rights Commission and the Joint Committee on Human Rights sounded
the alarm. The impact assessment was also published late, finding
that this legislation could lead to more industrial action and
have unknown knock-on consequences. Consultations have been
launched in a haphazard way and only for certain sectors, without
any explanation. There has been no meaningful consultation on the
Bill as a whole, not least with the very people that it will have
an impact on. If the Government had nothing to hide, they should
have nothing to fear. Labour Members will vote to keep Lords
amendment 2 and to protect the democratic scrutiny that the House
is meant to provide.
There are serious concerns about what the Bill will mean for
devolution. I have mentioned the unprecedented Henry VIII powers,
which allow Ministers to make decisions about services that are
entirely run by the devolved Administrations, including the
elected Governments of Wales and Scotland. The Bill sets a
dangerous precedent, using powers reserved to Westminster in one
area of law to interfere in other areas that have been devolved.
Perhaps the Minister has noticed that the Welsh Senedd and the
Scottish Parliament have refused legislative consent. There has
been no attempt to seriously engage with them or with devolved
Administrations with powers over sectors listed in the Bill,
including not just London, but my patch of Greater Manchester.
This is a question not of changing the devolution settlement, but
of defending it from the threat of the Bill. That is why we will
vote to uphold Lords amendment 1.
This is one of the worst pieces of legislation in modern times,
and looking over the last 13 years, that says a lot. But it is
not just Labour Members who think that. The Bill has been widely
and routinely condemned by: the Regulatory Policy Committee; the
Equality and Human Rights Commission; the Joint Committee on
Human Rights; NHS providers; the rail industry; the Chartered
Institute of Personnel and Development; the CEO of the
confederation of recruitment companies; the CEO of the NHS
Confederation; President Biden’s labour Secretary; the ILO; all
UK trade unions; the TUC; the Welsh and Scottish Governments; the
former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North East
Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg); the right hon. Member for Stevenage
(); the Transport
Secretary; the Education Secretary—what a shambles! If it was not
so serious, it would be a joke. This is from a Government who are
desperately trying to distract from the 13 years of their own
failings and who are playing politics with key workers’
lives.
The Bill is shoddy, unworkable and unnecessary. For the sake of
every nurse, teacher and firefighter across the UK, and for the
sake of our British democratic institutions, I urge the whole
House to join us in supporting the thoughtful and sensible
amendments from the other place and to vote down the Government’s
vindictive motions tonight.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
I call the SNP spokesman.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the
shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne
(). I agree with what she
said, and I welcome her comments on devolution protecting the
devolved Parliaments. I also welcome the commitment from Labour
to repeal this legislation if it is in Government, but I would
point out that there have already been a number of Labour U-turns
recently, and now we have heard the mantra that Labour is not
going to be in power to do the job of repealing nasty Tory
legislation, so there is a concern that Labour will not do what
its representatives have promised at the Dispatch Box. It is also
amazing that in an earlier intervention from the Tory Benches, we
heard the mantra that the Tories are the party of workers. The
party of workers will not even have one Back-Bench contribution
to today’s debate on the Lords amendments—that is how interested
they are in the workers in reality.
7.00pm
Lords amendment 1 is very welcome. However, I have to point out
that it is slightly bizarre that it was the Labour Lords who
voted through that amendment, which limits the territorial extent
of the Bill to England, while Labour MPs previously abstained on
our amendment 32, which would have required the consent of the
Scottish Parliament for the Bill to apply to Scotland. Why did
Labour MPs not previously vote for our amendment 32? Was it
because of the Bain principle? What has changed?
However, Lords amendment 1 hopefully means that Labour recognises
the democratic deficit of Westminster overruling the wishes of
the devolved Administrations. It means recognising that it is for
the devolved Administrations to decide what is right for our
nations, so by default—as per the question I asked in my
intervention earlier—it means that Labour should now be
recognising the need for employment rights to be devolved. The
Scottish Trades Union Congress backs that position as well: its
general secretary, Roz Foyer, has previously stated that
“Now more than ever, Scotland needs the devolution of employment
law to outlaw, once and for all, the use of zero-hours contracts,
giving workers security, certainty and workplace rights from day
one of their employment.”
It really is time for Labour to get on board with the concept,
and commit to the devolution of employment rights and the
legislation to do so.
It is also worth noting that there was no need for Lords
amendments to protect Northern Ireland when it comes to the
Bill’s territorial extent. That is because Labour previously
devolved employment law to the Northern Ireland Assembly, so if
it is good enough for Northern Ireland, clearly the so-called
most powerful devolved Parliament in the world should also have
employment law devolved. At the Dispatch Box, the Minister tried
to justify Westminster interfering yet again because somehow,
Wales and Scotland will be disproportionately hit with strikes if
Westminster does not impose its will. The reality is that
Scotland has seen the least strike action out of all the nations,
because we have better trade union relations and have actually
negotiated in good faith with the unions. That is how we get less
strike action, not Westminster imposing legislation that we do
not want on the devolved Parliament.
Some 61 Liberal Democrat Lords also voted for Lords amendment 1,
so the same challenge now goes to the Lib Dems: do they now agree
that employment-related legislation should be devolved? The hon.
Member for Edinburgh West () usually likes to
intervene; it would be good to know what the Lib Dems’ position
is on employment law, if they are voting to protect Scotland in
terms of the territorial extent of the Bill. No? We are not
getting anything from the Lib Dems. Finally, if we are talking
about the theme of democratic deficits, is it not incredible that
there are 14 elected Liberal Democrat MPs in this House and 83
Liberal Lords down the road? Does that not just show the
democratic deficit of the unelected place?
The key thing about Lords amendment 1 is that in protecting the
devolved Administrations from the Tory assault on workers’
rights, it also respects the wishes of the voters in the devolved
nations. The Tories can loosely argue that they had a transport
minimum services Bill as part of their manifesto, and they can
argue that they were voted in to deliver on their manifesto, but
given that the Tories were roundly rejected once again in
Scotland and Wales, it is quite clear that they do not have any
mandate whatsoever to implement the Bill in Scotland or
Wales.
As we pointed out previously, as Liberty and others have
observed, and as the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne
observed as well, the Bill allows unknown assaults on the
devolved Administrations. The Henry VIII clauses that allow both
existing and future legislation to be overruled are completely
outrageous. The Tories continually deny that they are making
power grabs while enacting enabling legislation to interfere in
devolved matters—again, the Minister’s comments from the Dispatch
Box illustrated that perfectly. Now we have the genius that is
, who negotiated the Brexit deal
that he now tells us is absolutely rubbish, arguing for powers to
be stripped from the Scottish Parliament. As the Tories lurch
further to the right, what is to say his view will not prevail?
Lords amendment 1 in itself does not prevent other attacks on
devolution, but it does stop anti-strike legislation being
imposed on the devolved Administrations. As such, I fully support
the amendment, while recognising that we still need to fully
devolve employment law.
Turning to Lords amendment 2, I have to start by saying yet again
that the entire Bill is shameful in its intent. It gives way too
much power to the Government, and it is being rammed through
Parliament—not only was its impact assessment published after the
Bill went through the Commons; it was classed as “not fit for
purpose” by the Regulatory Policy Committee. As such, Lords
amendment 2 adds a bit of transparency by requiring the
Government to consult on minimum service levels and assess the
impact on the right to strike, as well as on the effectiveness of
services and on the wider public—information that the Government
should be seeking to understand anyway. The Government should
embrace the amendment instead of opposing it. This is about
demonstrating that their intent is not solely Government
imposition and conflict with trade unions and employees, so they
really should think again about supporting the amendment.
The UK Government like to remind us—as happened earlier, when the
Minister was at the Dispatch Box—that minimum service levels
exist in other countries. However, as I said previously, those
requirements are agreed through negotiation. The general
secretary of the European Trade Union Confederation, Esther
Lynch, has said that
“The UK already has among the most draconian restrictions on the
right to strike in Europe. The UK government’s plans would push
it even further away from normal, democratic practice across
Europe.”
When the Minister refers to what goes on in other European
countries, he really should read up much better. Lords amendment
2 does not even bring the UK back in line with international
norms, but it provides more transparency and it should not be
controversial.
I will now turn to Lords amendments 4 and 5, and consequential
amendments 6 and 7. Amendment 4 seeks to remove the most
pernicious aspect of the Bill: the concept that employers can
name particular individuals to comply with a work notice, forcing
them to make the horrible decision between crossing a picket line
and risking being sacked for exercising what should be their
fundamental right to strike for fair pay and conditions. No
matter what flannel the Government put on it about minimum
service levels existing in other countries, the sacking of
individual workers for noncompliance will make the UK an
international outlier. Amendment 4 will rectify that by ensuring
that a breach of a work notice is not a sackable offence, which
of course is the international norm.
Amendment 5 removes another awful part of the Bill: the removal
of protections for unions. It should not be considered even
remotely acceptable that the Government are putting obligations
on unions to ensure that employees comply with work notices. As
Liberty has pointed out, proving that unions have not taken
reasonable steps is completely unworkable, especially as the
Government have not even defined what “reasonable steps” would
look like.
The Government also need to understand the wider human rights
concerns around the Bill. As the Joint Committee on Human Rights
wrote in its report on the Bill,
“We find it hard to see how it is compliant with Article 11 ECHR
to expose any participant in industrial action to the risk of
dismissal simply because a trade union fails to take unspecified
‘reasonable steps’… In our view, the Government has not provided
sufficient justification for this consequence or explained why
the minimum service scheme could not be effective without
it.”
Quite clearly, Lord amendment 5 has to be agreed to in order to
prevent such a breach of human rights. The JCHR also highlighted
the lack of an alternative mechanism allowing for independent
resolution of disagreements that would meet the standards of the
ILO, and the outrageous aspect of employers being able to claim
up to £1 million in damages against unions.
Even worse in terms of how the Bill operates, new section 234E in
the schedule forces unions effectively to act in a manner
contrary to their very purpose by forcing them to work against
the interests of their members and undermine their own legal
strike action. As it stands, the Bill is just a vehicle for
conflict with unions and employees. It is so obvious, and it is a
sign of a Government with no long-term intention of having
collegiate collective bargaining and who want to do their best to
make unions and strikes impotent, instead of understanding that
striking is a last resort following failed negotiations.
Lords amendment 4 rightfully puts duties on the employer to serve
notice and to prove they have served it correctly on an
individual. If we are to believe the Government’s premise that
minimum service levels are about health and safety and the
protection of life, it should hardly be onerous to expect an
employer to ensure that work notices are correctly served.
In summary, the Government should accept Lords amendments 4, 5, 6
and 7. Assuming that the Government win the votes tonight, I hope
that the Lords do the right thing and reinstate the amendments,
as well as Lords amendment 2. With Lords amendment 1, it is no
small irony that it is unelected Labour and Liberal Lords who
recognise the democratic deficits of Scotland and Wales having
unwanted policies imposed upon us. It is time that Labour
recognised that these Lords amendments are at best a sticking
plaster. We need full devolution of employment law and workers’
rights to Scotland. Labour must commit to that if it is to form
part of the next Westminster Government. While we obviously want
full independence, full devolution of employment law is a
pragmatic step forward. That reflects the wishes of the trade
unions, which I would hope a proper Labour party would be
reflective of, because we know that that lot over there on the
Government Benches certainly are not listening.
(City of Durham) (Lab)
I rise this evening as a proud trade unionist, proud to declare
my interest as a member of two great unions—Unite and Unison—and
proud to represent a constituency that is at the heart of the
labour movement. I know that every single worker who marches in
the Durham miners’ gala will be opposed to this Bill, which is
autocratic, undemocratic and unworkable. It is autocratic because
it gives enormous powers to the Secretary of State through Henry
VIII powers, reducing Parliament’s role to a rubber stamp. It is
undemocratic because it is another poorly written Bill rushed
through Parliament that will undoubtedly see the intervention of
the courts after Royal Assent. It is unworkable because trade
unions and their members will not accept this blatant attack on
their rights, and nor should they.
Since the Combination Act 1799, the party on the Government
Benches has tried to suppress working people’s rights, but it has
never succeeded in that, and it never will. The right to strike
is a fundamental human right that goes hand in hand with freedom
of association. History shows us that working people are never
afraid to challenge an oppressive Government. We have seen that
in the recent wave of industrial action, where workers are
prepared to fight for decent pay, against poverty wages, for
secure jobs and for their communities. They will continue,
whether or not this Bill becomes law, and the public will be on
their side.
Ministers could have used this time to negotiate with trade
unions, tackling the real causes of industrial unrest. Instead,
they have wasted Parliament’s time with a Bill that the Joint
Committee on Human Rights has said falls short of human rights
obligations. Amendments made in the other place have sought to
put flesh on this skeleton Bill—amendments that the Government
will reject this evening.
It is disgraceful that this Bill seeks to undermine devolution
using Henry VIII powers. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for
Cynon Valley () on her amendment in
Committee, and I welcome the amendments from the other place. The
British Government should not be interfering in areas where they
have no responsibility. It will simply deepen the divide between
London and the devolved Governments, and it is a joke that
Ministers talk about public safety during strikes when the Bill
itself does not even mention safety. It is all just a smokescreen
to attack workers’ rights even further.
On the Government’s watch, austerity has removed 20% of
firefighters since 2010, making all our lives less secure. It is
the same with nurses. Tens of thousands left the job they love
just last year, and now the Government want to make nurses’ lives
and the lives of millions of other workers even harder. Why are
Ministers not tackling the causes of this issue—the cost of
living crisis that is making the lives of my constituents a
misery?
7.15pm
Either way, the Bill will need to be repealed as soon as
possible, and I am pleased that the leader of the Labour party
has committed to doing so. Whether or not Conservative Members
agree with the scope of the Bill, there can be no doubt that it
is autocratic, undemocratic and unworkable. Conservative Members,
who claim to be democrats, must on principle oppose the Bill and
join Labour MPs in the Lobby this evening.
It is a pleasure to be called in this debate, and it is a
pleasure to follow the hon. Member for City of Durham (). I am glad that she
touched on point that any future Labour Government would repeal
this Act. I am just struck, as was my hon. Friend the Member for
Kilmarnock and Loudoun (), by the quote from the right
hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), who said:
“We can’t come into office, picking through all the conservative
legislation and repealing it… It would take up so much
parliamentary time. We need a positive agenda.”
If a positive agenda is not standing up for the principle of
human rights and democracy, I do not know what is. Perhaps when
the Labour Front Bencher sums up at the conclusion of the debate,
they will outline exactly how quickly this Bill will be repealed
from the statute book, as well as anti-trade union legislation
more generally.
As others have done, I declare an interest. I am a member of the
Unite trade union, which opposes this Bill, and I am happy to
stand in solidarity with it. We are very much beyond the looking
glass when it takes Members of the House of Lords to be the
people standing up for the principles of democracy and human
rights; none the less, I thank their lordships for the amendments
they have made to the Bill.
As I was sitting here listening to the Minister opening the
debate, I found it rather ironic that we are discussing minimum
service levels when the Conservative party’s Back Benchers have
literally not turned up for this debate. Other than Bill and Ben,
the PPS flower pot men, there are literally no other Conservative
MPs here to scrutinise this legislation. If the Government want
to talk about minimum service levels, let us have Conservative
MPs who campaigned for Brexit by talking about Parliament taking
back control coming here to talk about the horrific Henry VIII
powers that give unprecedented power to a Secretary of State who
would be completely out of control.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun mentioned
that statistically, when we look at the amount of industrial
action that has happened across these islands, Scotland has had
the lowest. That is because we take a partnership approach with
trade unions. Yes, there are times when the Scottish Government
and local authorities in Scotland will have difficult
conversations with trade unions, but by and large we understand
that the best way to resolve those disputes is to come to the
table, not to use legislation as a way of trying to strike down
the trade unions and to big up the likes of Mick Lynch and Sharon
Graham as some sort of bogeyman or Grinch. That is exactly what
this Bill is designed to do. It is designed to be a wedge issue
for the next general election, and that is why it is so important
that Labour Members stand up and oppose this Bill, even if they
cannot stand on picket lines.
Lords amendment 1 relates to the principle of devolution. I was
certainly heartened by what we heard earlier about the opposition
to Lords amendment 1, but the reality is that First Minister
, First Minister in Wales and the Governments
in both Wales and Scotland have outlined their absolute
opposition to this Bill, which we consider to be an affront to
democracy and to the basic fundamental human right to withdraw
one’s labour. That is one reason I would like to see employment
law devolved to the Administrations in Edinburgh and Cardiff. It
is good enough for Northern Ireland. Let us not forget that
because of the territorial application of this Bill, we will find
ourselves in the ridiculous situation where healthcare staff who
go on strike in Scotland, England and Wales will be subject to
the sack, whereas people in Northern Ireland who choose to use
their fundamental human right to withdraw their labour will not.
For a Government who talk about how important the Union is and
how important it is that we do not have divergence of policy,
this does rather fly in the face of that argument.
Tonight we will vote against all the Government’s motions on the
Lords amendments they are opposing, but when the Bill goes back
to the other place, I urge their lordships to hold firm against
this Government. They should not give in, because Parliament was
told we would be taking back control, and all we are seeing is a
Government running out of control and running roughshod over some
of our most basic rights. Of course, we were told Brexit was all
about strengthening employment rights. The Government talk about
that, but what they have brought forward is this tawdry Bill,
which once again tramples all over people, just as Thatcher tried
to do.
The warning to people in Scotland is that, for so long as they
continue to have Conservative Governments they did not vote
for—indeed, they have not voted for them since 1955—they will
continue to get legislation that tramples on workers’ rights. The
only way to protect our Parliament and to protect our workers’
rights is with the powers of independence, not Tories whom we did
not elect.
I rise to support the Lords amendments and to oppose the
Government’s intention of rejecting them. I am no longer a trade
union member, but I was, so a lot of this Bill offends my belief
in the right of the individual to withdraw their labour and the
rights of the trade unions.
Lords amendments 4 and 5 would tackle the unfair obligation on
the trade unions to ensure that members comply with a work
notice. The thought of sacking anyone for going on strike is
particularly difficult for me, because I actually have experience
of that. I have experience of my husband being sacked, in 1989-90
in Aberdeen, because he went on strike. I know the damage it did
to us and to a lot of people’s careers. To take away the right to
object to what people believe is an unfair practice or to ask for
better pay is, to me, a contravention of rights that people have
fought long and hard for in this country. So I will be voting no
on those two motions, as will the other Liberal Democrats.
On Lords amendment 1—
The hon. Member is coming on to Lords amendment 1, and I hope she
will support that amendment on the Bill’s territorial extent. Has
she had time to think further about the earlier point that the
logical extension of the Liberal Democrats supporting amendment 1
is the devolution of employment law to Scotland?
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but remind him that
we are here to discuss this Bill and its implications, which are
very serious. Yet again, there is an attempt to divert us on to
the constitutional issue, which in this particular instance is
not appropriate. Yes, I will be voting against—
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Not at the moment, thank you. I have not actually finished
speaking—
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
Order. For the sake of clarity, may I say that the hon. Lady is
absolutely right? This is a very narrow debate on these Lords
amendments.
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I will tell the House exactly how we are going to vote: we will
vote no on the Government motion to disagree with Lords amendment
1. Like the Labour party, we are very proud of the devolution
settlement in Scotland and the achievement of devolution in
Scotland and in Wales, which I would remind SNP Members they
actually opposed at the time. They campaigned against it, because
they were in favour of independence and did not want devolution,
so the commission did not involve them. But that is not what we
are here to talk about. We are here to talk about this Bill.
Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?
No, thank you.
The Bill is fundamentally flawed, not least in the fact that it
will do nothing to address the current shortfalls in employment
in the public sector. It will do nothing to protect the rights of
patients in hospitals, which as the right hon. Member for
Ashton-under-Lyne () said, are what the nurses
who have been on strike are seeking to protect. It will do
nothing to help them.
The arguments against this Bill were rehearsed thoroughly on
Second Reading, and I do not want to spend too much time going
through them again, but I pay tribute to the Lords for their
amendments, which do go some way to addressing the failings that
so many of us identified on Second Reading. The Liberal Democrats
will be voting no to the Government’s attempts to reject the
Lords amendments, because they would improve what is a flawed—I
believe, fundamentally flawed—Bill.
(Ilford South) (Lab)
In its original form, this Bill represented what many call a
sackers charter, because it was a mishmash of unworkable
draconian assault on workers’ rights. I would say it is one of
the biggest setbacks for workers’ rights in generations. If it
passes, it will shackle trade unions, ordinary workers and a
whole list of people struggling for fair wages in so many sectors
of our economy. It will place unacceptable restrictions on the
fundamental right for workers to withdraw their labour, and to
defend their and their colleagues’ pay, which at the moment
mostly seems to mean defending themselves from the Government’s
inability to offer fair pay rises in so much of our public
sector.
Worst of all, particularly in a sector such as the railways, the
Bill will worsen industrial relations, create more delays on rail
and create a worse situation for passengers. It will worsen
industrial relations overall. I note that one union did
successfully get a decent pay rise, because the Government
clearly could not stomach the fight with it. It was our beloved
firefighters who did actually get a decent raise out of this
Government.
This Bill is anti-democratic because it gives the Secretary of
State enormous power to define and introduce minimum service
requirements. It is draconian because, in its original form,
workers could be sacked for participating in industrial action
supported through their own democratic processes. By the way,
with trade unions facing enormous damages, we should bear in mind
that they are the biggest voluntary organisation movement in this
country, with more than 6 million people, and the majority of the
reps do not get a single penny for the trade union work they
do.
The Bill is also counterproductive, because the Government’s own
analysis says that minimum service levels could lead to more
strikes and more non-strike industrial action—in other words,
action short of strike—so what on earth is the point of going
ahead with it? It is unnecessary to its very core, because it is
already custom and practice, especially in the NHS and the blue
light services, for cover to be agreed by unions during
industrial disputes.
indicated dissent.
The Minister shakes his head, but that is a fact. If he does not
believe me, I will take him to my local hospital to see that and
to have discussions with the union reps, who regard the safety of
their patients as their outright priority.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on that very
point, because I used to negotiate those deals with employers
when I was head of health at Unite. Those negotiations are about
the relationship that we build between the employer and the
worker, but that will not be possible under the Bill, which is
why employers have asked that it does not proceed.
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. When we cast around for
anybody actually supporting the Bill who is not a Minister or on
the Conservative Benches, we struggle to find anyone. In fact,
the Rail Safety and Standards Board chief executive has said
nobody thinks this is workable and that it will worsen industrial
action. The chief executive of Greater Anglia, who is obviously
involved in the railway industry, has said nobody —nobody—in the
whole of the rail industry has even asked for this. Then, as we
heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne
() and many other Members who
have spoken, there are the condemnations from the ILO general
secretary.
This attack on rights is making our country an international
laughing stock. The Government have said many times that the Bill
matches or is very similar to some of the minimum service level
processes in many other countries, but there is not a single
person in Europe saying this is good idea, because it is not
anything like what is in place in comparable countries around the
world—not at all. One in five workers could be covered by this
Bill’s provisions. They are the nurses, firefighters, teachers,
paramedics, rail workers, civil servants and key workers the
Government praised during the pandemic, who are all at risk of
arbitrary dismissal. What a slap in the face for the heroes we
clapped for weeks on end during the pandemic.
Let me turn to Lords amendment 4, on unfair dismissal. Currently,
workers who are on strike are automatically deemed to be unfairly
dismissed if they are sacked when taking part in an official,
lawful strike. The Bill as introduced would remove that
protection for those named by an employer in a work notice. It
would mean that someone disciplined for not following a work
notice could lose their job and then their livelihood. Lords
amendment 4 is much fairer. It would reverse that measure and
prevent the failure to comply with a work notice from being
regarded as a breach of contract or constituting lawful grounds
for dismissal. To be fair to the Government, I have not heard
even them say that people should be sacked for trying to enact
democratic rights. That would be a U-turn on what the Government
said when minimum service level legislation was first brought
forward. It was pledged in the 2019 Queen’s speech that
“sanctions are not directed at individual workers.”
The Bill clearly does do that, but the Lords amendment would help
the Government to develop the policy set out in their own
manifesto, so why not go ahead and back it tonight?
7.30pm
Staffing shortages within public services are at record levels.
NHS job vacancies number 133,446, and one in eight newly
qualified teachers left their job in the first year of
teaching—yes, one in eight teachers are leaving the job in the
first year of taking it up. No wonder we have such a crisis in
education. Sacking workers for speaking up about their pay and
conditions will worsen morale and worsen the staffing crisis in
so many of our most important sectors. NHS Providers has gone
further and warned that without this amendment, asking trusts to
enforce work notices will damage relations and the good will that
is already in place and that, as my hon. Friend the Member for
York Central () said, is crucial to
successful local negotiations.
In the other place, Baroness O’Grady said that no other European
country with minimum service levels does this—that is the point I
made earlier. She said it will make Britain
“an outlier in Europe and would constitute a gross infringement
of an employee’s individual freedom.”—[Official Report, House of
Lords, 26 April 2023; Vol. 829, c. 1234.]
Without Lords amendment 4, the Bill will constitute a fundamental
violation of workers’ freedom and the democratic right to
withdraw one’s labour. Something that makes me proud to be
British is that we fought for and won that right over the past
200 years or more.
Lords amendments 5, 6 and 7 are on union rights. In its original
form, the Bill will place trade unions in an untenable position
when their members democratically vote for industrial action. We
have the recent example of the National Union of Rail, Maritime
and Transport Workers, which got even higher numbers in its
second ballot for industrial action than it did the first time.
We hear from the Rail Minister that we ought to put the deal
straight to the members, but perhaps the RMT should put it
straight to the members, as they would probably vote against it
by an even bigger margin.
The Bill states that if unions fail to “take reasonable steps” to
ensure that their members who democratically voted for industrial
action cannot participate in that same action, they could face an
injunction or be asked to pay huge damages. Strikes could be
regarded as unlawful, stripping workers of all protections,
including but not limited to automatic unfair dismissal
protections. We have some pretty big trade unions in this
country, and for unions with more than 100,000 members—there are
quite a lot in the TUC—damages could be more than £1 million.
That is £1 million taken by this Government from workers who are
democratically making decisions about their future and to defend
their pay, more often than not against that very same Government.
It is outrageous.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights stated that it is
“hard to see how it is compliant with Article 11 ECHR to expose
any participant in industrial action to the risk of dismissal
simply because a trade union fails to take unspecified
‘reasonable steps’ required in respect of those subject to a work
notice.”
That is not technical jargon; it means that the threat of
litigation, and the obligations on unions to help ensure
compliance with work notices imposed by employers, would require
unions to act in a way that would undermine their own industrial
action and their responsibility to represent their members. That
is what union members pay their subs to do.
The right to strike is a hallmark of any democratic society, and
it is recognised and protected by United Nations treaties, ILO
conventions, the European social charter, and the European
convention on human rights. When many people in those
organisations condemn the Bill as unworkable, unnecessary and an
attack on rights in this country, that tells me that this measure
has been driven by political machination and the desire to have a
distraction from a failing Government, and has little to do with
enhancing industrial relations in this country.
Lords amendment 5 and the subsequent technical amendments would
protect unions from being forced into undermining their own
otherwise lawful and legitimate strike action. It would also
remove an employer’s recourse to secure injunctions to prevent
unions from conducting a strike that has been legally
balloted—something that has happened for decades in this country
and is seen as one of the fundamental cornerstones of our
democracy. I urge Members across the House to vote against the
Government’s motion to reject Lords amendment 5 and the related
technical amendments.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said,
the scale of international and civil society criticism is pretty
extensive. The list is huge. The chief executive of the Rail
Safety and Standards Board, the managing director of Greater
Anglia and NHS Providers have also said that the Bill will damage
relationships and trust between staff and leaders. The director
general of the ILO has rebuked the Government over it. The US
Secretary of Labour has said:
“I would not support anything that would take away from
workers”
and 121 politicians from 18 countries recently signed a joint
statement opposing the Bill. That included signatories from the
Government parties in Australia and Spain as well as the former
Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte. These are not some
left-wing rabble turning up to say, “Hey, this is something we
don’t want”—these are respected global leaders saying that our
country is in the wrong place on this Bill.
In addition, an open letter has been written by 50 civil rights
groups, including Liberty, Human Rights Watch and Oxfam, which
all condemned the Bill. Race equality organisations, including
the Equality Trust, the Joint Council for the Welfare of
Immigrants and the Runnymede Trust—all respected, established
organisations—have all raised concerns that black and minority
ethnic workers could also be unfairly targeted. Campaigners for
women’s rights, among them the Fawcett Society, Pregnant Then
Screwed, the Equality Trust and the Women’s Budget Group, have
also warned that women could be disproportionately affected. No
one who is not on the Government Benches thinks that the Bill is
a good idea—not employers, not workers and not the international
community. So I would like to hear at the end of the debate from
the Minister: why is he so insistent on pushing ahead with
something that is both unworkable and so undemocratic? Perhaps,
for once, the Government could sanction the people around the
negotiating table to end the industrial disputes in teaching, in
the NHS and in the transport sector and instead put British
workers and our rights first.
(Birkenhead) (Lab)
I declare an interest as a trade unionist with more than 50
years’ experience and as a proud member of Unite the Union. I
rise to speak in support of amendments 5 and 4, tabled by Lord
Collins and Baroness O’Grady, among others, but before I turn to
the substance of those important and thoughtful amendments, I
want to say that no number of amendments could ever make the Bill
acceptable to those of us on this side of the House who believe
in the fundamental right of workers to pursue fair and equitable
treatment at work. Its central purpose—to prevent workers from
exercising their right to take strike action—is an affront to the
most basic principles of democracy, and the idea of forcing a
worker to cross their own picket line strikes at the heart of
trade unionism.
Not for the first time, this Government have suffered the
ignominy of being condemned by the international community for
their deviation from democratic norms, with 121 politicians from
more than 18 countries recently condemning what they described as
the
“the UK Government’s attempt to limit workers’ rights and its
attempt to justify it with comparisons to international
norms.”
The Bill’s specific provisions, especially those that seek to
make unions liable for the actions of their members who fail to
adhere to work notices, betray an utter ignorance on the part of
Ministers about the nature of employment relations in the UK. The
Bill is opposed not just by the trade unions, but by the vast
majority of the business community. Paul Nowak, general secretary
of the TUC, expressed the feelings of many when he said that the
Bill will serve only to poison industrial relations in this
country and exacerbate the disputes that it seeks to end. This is
yet another dangerous gimmick from a Government who at every
stage have refused to settle demands for fair pay from public
sector workers.
I want to single out Lords amendment 4, tabled by Baroness
O’Grady, which would provide a much-needed safeguard for workers
from the almost inevitable exploitation of work notices by
unscrupulous employers. Amendment 5, tabled by Lord Collins,
would excise proposed new section 234E, which would oblige trade
unions to ensure that their members comply with a work notice.
That is surely one of the most abhorrent measures in the entire
Bill. It would in effect compel trade unions to undermine the
effectiveness of their own lawful actions. It is a proposal as
ludicrous as it is alarming and it should be consigned to the
scrapheap.
I have closely followed the contributions in the other place
concerning the Bill and salute the attempts to mitigate the worst
excesses of what nevertheless remains a vindictive,
anti-democratic and unworkable piece of legislation. I have no
doubt whatever that Government Members will refuse altogether to
listen to the concerns raised in the other place, and I say with
absolute certainty that the Government will shortly come to
regret this deplorable attempt to restrict the rights of their
citizens.
(Barnsley East) (Lab)
I am pleased to speak in this important debate in support of
Lords amendments 4 and 5 to the minimum service levels Bill. As a
proud member of a trade union, I refer the House to my entry in
the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The Bill is a fundamental attack on working people’s rights and
freedoms, meaning that workers are at risk of being punished for
exercising their right to strike. As someone who has been on
strike as a teacher, I know that the decision to withdraw labour
is not an easy one; it is a last resort when workers feel they
have no other option; when conditions and pay are no longer
tolerable.
The Bill would make seeking an injunction easier and broaden the
circumstances that allow this process to take place. Therefore,
where strikes are fairly balloted and otherwise lawful, employers
would have more scope to be able to bring an injunction against
trade unions under the Trade Union and Labour Relations
(Consolidation) Act 1992, potentially putting a stop to fair
industrial action and flying in the face of fundamental workers’
rights. As the Bill broadens the circumstances under which
minimum service levels apply, that means a poor employer could
issue a work notice where one is not needed, to workers they know
are part of the trade union, and sack them for failure to comply
with the notice when they strike, as they are likely to do. The
Bill allows scope for bad employers to use loopholes to target
specific employees. Amendment 4 seeks to prevent this from being
possible; it would be a huge backward step. Amendment 5 aims to
ensure that unions are not obliged to ensure that their members
have to comply with work notices, which would undermine their own
otherwise lawful strikes.
Furthermore, the Joint Committee on Human Rights says that the
penalties imposed on trade unions and workers for failing to
comply with work notices are “severe” and that the Bill would be
likely to lead to disproportionate involvement from employers,
particularly where a strike does not involve risk to life and
limb. The Committee said that the Government should reconsider
whether “less severe measures” would be more effective. Lords
amendment 4 would prevent workers from being vulnerable to
dismissal for failure to comply with a work order.
The Bill is unworkable and the Government know it. The Transport
Secretary admits that it will not work, the Education Secretary
does not want it and the Government’s own regulatory watchdog has
called it “unfit for purpose”. It offers no solutions and it
would not have prevented the recent wave of industrial action. It
is a distraction from 13 years of failure. So why are the
Government insisting on pushing ahead? They have rushed this
through Parliament, presented the findings of the impact
assessment to the Bill late and provided only four and a half
hours for the Committee of the whole House.
There are serious concerns about how the Bill will be implemented
in practice. In countries such as Spain and France that already
have minimum service levels in place, more days have been lost to
strikes than in the UK and that can lead to legal battles, which
further delay solutions to industrial action.
In 1984, striking mineworkers in Barnsley were branded “the enemy
within” by the Government when they went on strike to defend
their industry. We still feel the economic effects of that
political attack. Today, the Government are again blaming
hard-working people—this time, for the Government’s economic
failure.
(Leeds East) (Lab)
I rise to speak in support of all the Lords amendments, but I
especially want to focus on Lords amendment 4 and Lords
amendments 5 to 7, because they are about protecting two key
democratic principles: the rights of the worker to withdraw their
labour; and the role of trade unions to represent workers—and not
bosses and not the Government—when workers decide to withdraw
their labour.
Lords amendment 4 would mean that a failure to comply with a work
notice would not be deemed to be a breach of an employment
contract, so the person could not be dismissed as a result. Lords
amendments 5 to 7 would ensure that trade unions do not have any
responsibility to ensure that their members comply with the work
notice. We need to be clear about what the Bill is about and why
the Lords amendments are necessary. The Bill is about perverting
the role of trade unions in our democratic society. It is about
trying to turn the trade unions into not the servants of workers,
but the servants of bosses, or even the servants of a
Conservative Government.
7.45pm
How can the Government argue that it is reasonable for the role
of a trade union to include encouraging its own members to cross
picket lines in a strike that has been declared lawful and that
its members have voted for? It is obscene. It is an attack on key
freedoms. It is incredible that we even have to speak out in
defence of those basic principles. For all the Government’s talk
that the Bill is about public safety and service levels, these
Lords amendments get to the heart of the Bill. It is a
fundamental attack on the rights of individual workers to strike
and on the role of trade unions. This wretched legislation will
see workers who have democratically voted for strike action
forced by their employer to go into work. That is why Opposition
Members are saying that it is an attack on the right to
strike.
As I have said, the Bill will see trade unions forced to play a
role in policing their own members into work—and if they do not,
they will face legal action and heavy fines. What kind of role
would trade unions have if trade union officials near picket
lines are not persuading trade union members not to go to work,
but obliged by this legislation to persuade trade union members
to break democratically agreed upon strike action? If we think
about it, it is very sinister. It is an unprecedented
encroachment on the role of trade unions in our democratic
society. It is a fundamental attack on one of our core democratic
rights. [Interruption.] It is almost like bringing in legislation
requiring the Minister to stand near polling stations and request
that people vote Labour. I give way.
(Kingston upon Hull East)
(Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on making an incredibly good
speech. I was not trying to intervene; I was suggesting that, if
the Minister had something to say, I am sure that my hon. Friend
would be happy to give way to him.
I would. My hon. Friend is always light on his feet in the
Chamber, as he has shown, but I would be happy to give way to the
Minister if he has anything of merit to say as this pernicious
piece of legislation passes through with no acceptance by the
Government of the common-sense and democratic decency of the
amendments from the other place. Their anti-strikes Bill is no
one-off—this is why the Lords amendments are so necessary. It is
part of an authoritarian drift by a Government who, as we have
heard, are desperate to close off any challenges to their
reactionary agenda, be that at the ballot box, on the picket line
or on protests.
The Bill, this attack on the right to strike, follows
restrictions on the right to vote through the disgraceful voter
suppression strategy. It follows restrictions on the right to
protest through the disgraceful Public Order Act 2023. This
anti-strikes Bill, like the Public Order Act and voter ID, should
be thrown into the dustbin of history.
It is deeply concerning that, in 2023, we are having to rely on
members in the other place to send these Lords amendments back
when we are facing such draconian attacks on democratic rights,
including the democratic right to strike, the democratic freedom
to withdraw labour and the democratic role of trade unions to
represent their members—workers, not bosses and not the
Conservative Government.
I end by refuting the Government’s empty claim that this
legislation is really about bringing the UK into line with
International Labour Organisation norms. That is absolutely not
the case. I previously tabled an amendment, backed by 30 Members
on a cross-party basis, to prevent this legislation from being
enacted until a judge had certified that the UK was meeting its
International Labour Organisation obligations. The Government
refused to accept that amendment; I wonder why. Perhaps it is
because they know that their claim that the Bill brings us into
line with other countries and International Labour Organisation
standards is hollow rhetoric. The truth, as the European Trade
Union Confederation has said, is that
“The UK already has among the most draconian restrictions on the
right to strike in Europe, and the UK government’s plans would
push it even further away from normal, democratic practice across
Europe.”
Members do not need to be trade unionists to understand the
common sense and democratic decency of these Lords amendments,
and they certainly do not need to be socialists. Any Member of
this House who values the hard-won freedoms of individual workers
and trade unions in our society should back these Lords
amendments. Not to do so would be completely shameful and go
against the hard-won democratic freedoms that we have secured in
this country through struggle. Indeed, it is shameful that we
have had to protest outside Parliament today and to argue for
those freedoms in this Chamber tonight.
Let me start by referring the House to my entry in the Register
of Members’ Interests and the fact that I am a proud member of
the Glasgow city branch of Unison, one of the largest trade
unions across these islands.
Like many other Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for
Glasgow East (), I am completely puzzled as
to why there seems to be industrial action on the Government
Benches every time we discuss industrial action law. Could it be
that Government Members are so outraged by this Bill, and indeed
support the Lords amendments, that they are at the TUC rally
outside? I doubt it somewhat. Or is it simply the fact—as I
believe to be the case—that Government Back Benchers do not have
the confidence in their own arguments for this legislation to
come here and defend the Government’s position?
It seems that the unelected House—the comrades in ermine down the
corridor—has a greater understanding of what happens in
workplaces across these islands than the Government do, and we
can see that in some of the amendments. It is quite incredible
that the Government oppose an amendment that would make it the
employer’s responsibility to serve a work notice. The Government
then say that they want to keep the measures in the Bill for
dismissing a worker. This is quite incredible.
Imagine the scene. The day after industrial action, a poor
individual who went on strike goes back to their work and is
asked by the employer, “Where were you yesterday?” They are going
to answer, “I was on strike.” But they are then told, “Well, you
were served a work notice,” and that person will rightly say,
“Where’s the proof from you as the employer that I was served a
work notice?” The employer is going to say, “Under the
legislation, we don’t need to serve the work notice, but we have
the right to dismiss you, because we think you should have been
served one,” and they will end up being dismissed—with no right,
incidentally, as I understand the legislation, to an employment
tribunal. You really could not make this up.
The Government also oppose a sensible amendment to ensure
oversight of the powers in the Bill. A Government who are
confident in their own legislation should welcome an amendment to
ensure oversight of the Bill and a Committee of each House to
look at how the powers are exercised. Of course, as the Minister
has indicated, he opposes that Lords amendment, too.
Then we have Lords amendment 1. I heard the Minister say that
industrial relations is reserved. Well, not quite, Minister,
because when there are elections to Scotland’s Parliament or the
Senedd in Wales, political parties—at least the sensible and good
ones—will have in their manifestos how industrial relations
should be addressed in areas of devolved competence. That would
seem the sensible approach for a good political party to take,
which is why there are debates in both those devolved Parliaments
about the fair work agenda. We should have more of those debates
in this place—but of course, the Government would not know fair
work or the fair work agenda if it crossed them in the
street.
The reason I think the Lords have got it right in their amendment
1 is that the Government seem to believe, and take the position,
that they know better than the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh
Senedd about devolved areas of responsibility. In seeking to
reject Lords amendment 1, the Government are arguing that
Ministers at Westminster level have the expertise to know what
the minimum service levels should be in transport, health or
anything else in Scotland or Wales, when they cannot even manage
their own minimum service levels in this Chamber. What chance
have we got that they will understand?
If anyone seriously believes that a Minister in this place has an
understanding of what the minimum service level should be in a
devolved competence, then I would suggest that they must be a
right Michael Blackley. Frankly, you could not make it up. It is
laughable position, and the Lords have got it right. In this
respect, the law should apply to England only, and then England’s
representatives should decide whether, possibly, the legislation
should apply at all.
(Glasgow Central)
(SNP)
My hon. Friend is making excellent points about the importance of
industrial relations and Scotland having the expertise to deal
with that. Does he agree that industrial relations in Scotland in
recent years have been much improved on the situation under the
Westminster Government, certainly in negotiating pay and
conditions for workers in Scotland?
I thank my constituency neighbour for that excellent
intervention, because as my good Friends the Members for Glasgow
East and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun () indicated earlier, the area of
the United Kingdom with the least industrial action is Scotland.
That is because there seems to be a mature relationship between
employers and trade unions in Scotland—far more mature, it would
seem, than in England, for example, where we see Government
Ministers bashing trade unions on a daily basis on the sofas of
breakfast television.
I want to end my remarks, because I am conscious that others want
to speak in this debate. The fact that the Government want to
dismiss workers for exercising the human right to withdraw their
labour is what makes this an absolutely despicable and
disgraceful piece of legislation, which would tie them in with
countries such as Russia and Hungary. We might think that those
are not examples that the Government should follow. It seems
quite frankly bizarre that they do want to follow them. I will be
in the No Lobby tonight, because I agree with these Lords
amendments.
(Wansbeck) (Lab)
I would like to declare my interests as a proud trade union
member all of my life.
Obviously I want to discuss the amendments from the other place,
but I have to say that this should basically be classed as the
anti-strike Bill. This is a Bill that very few people want, far
less like. Despite the fact that there are very few people on the
Government Benches, we will watch them flow through the Lobby
tonight—again, to attack working people of this country. Nor
should we be surprised by any of this, because when the
Government are down—when they are out; when they are under
pressure; when they are out of steam and have nothing left to
say, after 13 years of destruction of this country—what can bring
them together? The answer is attacking trade unions, attacking
working people and, we should not forget—and we will never
forget—attacking key workers, because that is what this Bill
does. It is about culture wars and politics of distraction. Like
rats when cornered, they revert to type.
The amendments from the other place are extremely important. The
thinking behind each of the amendments is that people understand
the real intentions of the Bill. They are not what has been
suggested by the Minister and others on the Government Benches.
We need to be honest about what the Bill is actually about.
8.00pm
If someone working in any industry who is a member of a trade
union, and who has a ballot—with this country’s restrictive
legislation—and jumps through the hoops of the threshold and wins
that, they have a majority for industrial action. The issue might
be pensions, or it might be health and safety, for heaven’s sake.
In an attack on working people introduced in this place, this
legislation states that regardless of the ballot result from that
democratic process, they are expected to ignore it. They could be
under pressure from the boss, the employer and then the
Government. Under the new legislation, if I was at a workplace
and I had been advocating action—as a last resort, as it always
is—I would break the law.
Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the significant amount of
industrial unrest over the last several months and, indeed,
years, where people do not think they are listened to, the
introduction of this legislation will deepen their resolve? They
will show by their actions that they will not tolerate an attack
on their freedoms and their basic employment and human
rights.
It is extremely important that people understand that once we see
nurses, doctors, teachers and key workers facing the sack, there
will be resistance in this country. I kid you not, there will be
resistance in this country like we have never seen before,
because these are basic human rights. We cannot instruct ordinary
hard-working people; key workers; the people who got us through
the pandemic; the people who put the Great in Great Britain. We
cannot, under any circumstances, allow this legislation to sack
individuals.
Lords amendment 4 refers to the work notice. My friend, the hon.
Member for Glasgow South West (), eloquently made the point
about the notification of a work notice. If someone has not had
notification of a work notice, how could they ever be accused of
breaching it if they are not aware that they have it? This is
pretty simple stuff. I am not a barrister or a solicitor, but I
understand it. And you know what, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Members
on the Government Benches understand it, too. There is no doubt
about that. When those people are asked the following day, “Why
weren’t you here? You had a work notice,” and they reply, “I
didn’t have one”, they will be told, “You did. How did you not
understand that?” They can be sacked for that. Under this
legislation, they can be sacked for not adhering to something
that they did not even know they were part of. How bad is
that?
It is actually worse than the hon. Gentleman is presenting it,
because the person dismissed would not have the right to go to an
employment tribunal.
Absolutely. I fully agree with those sentiments.
When employers are considering who they might wish to give the
work notice to, Lords amendment 3 suggests that when deciding
whether to identify a person in a work notice, an employer cannot
consider whether the person “has or has not” taken part in trade
union activities, made use of their services or had a trade union
raise issues on their behalf. That amendment should not be needed
in the UK in 2023, because everybody clearly understands that if
bosses give work notices, they have a clear idea who they will
give them to: the trade union reps and the people who do not have
a fantastic employment record. That is why that Lords amendment
about who the company identifies for a work notice is really
important.
In reality, this legislation is simply a battering ram against
ordinary working people. I have mentioned the resistance that
will be shown in this country if we start sacking the nurses, the
teachers and the posties. Blaming the posties for breaking the
universal service obligation; blaming the teachers for education
in their classes; blaming the nurses for the backlog—you name it,
that is what the bosses will do. That will start under this
legislation, as they will have the power to sack people. This is
a sackers charter, no doubt about that, criminalising our heroic
workers.
There will be resistance like we have never seen before. The
difference is that the public are on the side of the workers on
this one, so be ready. I raise a stark warning: be ready. When
the bosses have the books out, ready to sack individuals, and
when the Government are telling them who to sack and what the
reasons might be, they should be ready for the resistance,
because there will be huge issues. How can the Government expect
a trade union to take responsibility for individuals who might
not want to accept a basic human right? It is bizarre. It is
absolutely crazy. I am trying to explain it, but it is very
difficult; it is not simple. The trade unions have a huge role to
play.
The Bill not only escalates an already febrile atmosphere in this
country; it is a vicious attempt the pin the problems that we
have on trade unions, from a party that has completely run out of
steam. When will the Government start doing their job, for
heaven’s sake? How many more hospital appointments need to be set
back? How many teachers need to be made redundant or letters and
parcels be delivered late before they stop making excuses and
demonising workers, and get on with the job that they were
elected to do?
My hon. Friend is making an outstanding speech about the reality
of industrial relations. Does he agree that trade unions do not
have any jurisdiction over their members; it is the members who
have the jurisdiction over the trade unions? Therefore, it is for
the members to decide what action they take or do not take. The
Government do not seem to get it.
My hon. Friend makes a good and valid point that the trade unions
are the workers themselves. It is as simple as that.
In conclusion, will Government Members tell us why we are not
having a minimum service Bill for non-strike days? In the past
year or so, in particular when the paramedics and ambulance
workers have gone on strike, efficiency has increased and has
been first class on strike days. On non-strike days, like the
360-odd days other than those strike days, unfortunately what we
see is people lying on pavements or having heart attacks who
cannot get an ambulance. Let us look at a Bill for non-striking
days so we can enhance the efficiency of all of the services
outlined tonight. If the Minister did that, he would get our
support.
I thank all Members, on both sides of the House, for the robust
debate we have had as the legislation has passed through both
Houses. It is fair to say that the discussion and debate about
the legislation has pretty much divided along party political
lines. Our position is that this legislation strikes a balance
between the right to strike and the right of the public to go
about their daily business and daily lives.
It is also fair to say that we could have chosen an option that
went much further. As I said earlier, the USA, Australia and
Canada have completely banned strikes in certain sectors,
prohibiting them completely. Spain and Belgium have similar
legislation on minimum service levels. Indeed, in France there
are penalties of up to six months in jail for anyone who is under
a requisition notice to return to work.
It is interesting that many Opposition Members have talked about
restricting the right to strike. Well, we already restrict the
right to strike for the armed forces, the police and prison
officers. Will Opposition Members repeal that legislation to
allow people who work in those parts of our society to strike?
There are already some restrictions; we are putting in place
sensible restrictions that are already in place in many other
countries.
The guidance from the International Labour Organisation says:
“A minimum service may be set up in the event of a strike, the
extent and duration of which might be such as to result in an
acute national crisis endangering the normal living conditions of
the population.”
It is clear the ILO supports the kinds of measures we are putting
in place. I have heard Opposition Members say that no one wants
this legislation but interestingly, when surveyed, 56% of the
public say that they do, against 31% who do not.
Earlier today, the deputy Leader of the Opposition tweeted her
support for the 121 politicians who have condemned the Bill. May
I gently urge her to look at some of the people who signed that
letter? Some of those signatories are anti-Zelensky,
anti-Ukraine, anti-Israel and pro-Russia. I urge her to look at
that again and withdraw her tweet.
We believe the legislation strikes the right balance between the
right to strike and the rights of the public to go about their
daily business and protect their livelihoods. There have been
over £3 billion of costs to our economy because of these strikes,
which is putting many businesses and many jobs in danger. The
Bill presents a fair balance between the rights of workers and
the rights of the public.
The Minister is generous in giving way. He mentions balance. Can
he tell me what is balanced about a piece of legislation, which
he supports, whereby an employee who does not get a work notice
can be dismissed?
There have to be measures that employers can use to make sure
people comply with the work notice—that is how it works in many
other countries. The reality is that nobody will be sacked as a
result of the legislation. There are other disciplinary measures
that can take place. We already have derogations in place on a
voluntary basis that do not always prove ineffective. We are
formalising the process to allow these measures to take place in
other vital public services.
The amendments would make the legislation ineffective, which is
why I urge all Members on both sides of the House to vote with us
and disagree with the amendments.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment
1.
[Division 235
The House divided:
Ayes
288
Noes
227
Question accordingly agreed to.
Held on 22 May 2023 at
8.14pm](/Commons/2023-05-22/division/00186FC9-B39E-49CB-BBDB-A528E0C075AB/CommonsChamber?outputType=Names)
Lords amendment 1 disagreed to.
Schedule
Minimum service levels for certain strikes
Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with
Lords amendment 2.—(.)
[Division 236
The House divided:
Ayes
286
Noes
231
Question accordingly agreed to.
Held on 22 May 2023 at
8.28pm](/Commons/2023-05-22/division/699735E1-A4E6-4207-9D13-8DFF110DB7E0/CommonsChamber?outputType=Names)
Lords amendment 2 disagreed to.
8.39pm
More than two hours having elapsed since the commencement of
proceedings on the Lords amendments, the proceedings were
interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
The Deputy Speakerput forthwith the Questions necessary for the
disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing
Order No. 83F).
Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with
Lords amendment 4.
[Division 237
The House divided:
Ayes
286
Noes
232
Question accordingly agreed to.
Held on 22 May 2023 at
8.40pm](/Commons/2023-05-22/division/9C406DB7-C45F-4031-A9B0-653556CB4B2B/CommonsChamber?outputType=Names)
Lords amendment 4 disagreed to.
Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with
Lords amendment 5.—(.)
[Division 238
The House divided:
Ayes
287
Noes
232
Question accordingly agreed to.
Held on 22 May 2023 at
8.51pm](/Commons/2023-05-22/division/9711E16F-6360-480F-93C7-2F3EC39812FF/CommonsChamber?outputType=Names)
Lords amendment 5 disagreed to.
Lords amendments6 and 7 disagreed to.
Lords amendment 3 agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No.
83H(2)), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be
assigned to the Lords for disagreeing with their amendments 1, 2
and 4 to 7;
That , , , , , and be members of the
Committee;
That be the Chair of the
Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(.)
Question agreed to.
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and
communicated to the Lords
|
