Moved by Lord Davies of Gower That the draft Regulations laid
before the House on 7 November be approved. Relevant document: 3rd
Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special
attention drawn to the instrument) The Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Davies of
Gower) (Con) My Lords, these draft regulations will be made under
the powers conferred by the Trade Union and Labour Relations
(Consolidation) Act...Request free
trial
Moved by
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 7 November be
approved.
Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Secondary Legislation
Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the
instrument)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Transport () (Con)
My Lords, these draft regulations will be made under the powers
conferred by the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation)
Act 1992, as amended by the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act
2023. The regulations will apply across Great Britain, and their
purpose is to set minimum service levels for specified services
that can apply during strikes affecting passenger rail
services.
The minimum service levels are designed to balance the public’s
need to make important journeys and the impact of rail strikes on
the economy with the ability of rail workers to take strike
action. Since 2019, there has not been a single day without
either a strike happening on the railways or mandates for strikes
outstanding. The result has been many periods of disruptive
strike action, with widespread consequences for passengers and
the wider economy. This Government want to see an end to this
disruptive strike action, but the trade unions continuing to call
for it has led to these regulations being necessary.
I acknowledge the amendments to the Motion relating to this
instrument. The regret amendment in the name of the noble Lord,
, references the views of the
Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on the detail of
the policy in the Act, the retrospective element of the
regulations, the fact that the impact assessment was not
published at the time of laying, contractual concerns, and
concerns for the ability for workers to take strike action. The
fatal amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett,
references concerns around the impact of these regulations on the
workforce and about safety, and raises concerns that the Act
places undue obligations on trade unions.
In its 3rd Report of Session 2023-24, the Secondary Legislation
Scrutiny Committee noted that more information should have been
provided to explain the policy decision in the Explanatory
Memorandum. The committee also noted that the impact assessment
was not published at the time of laying and mentioned the
issuance of an initial review notice by the Regulatory Policy
Committee. I will address the amendments to the Motion and the
Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s remarks but will turn
first to the instrument under consideration today.
The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 establishes a
framework for the making of regulations to set minimum service
levels during strikes. The Act provides that for certain sectors,
including transport, the relevant Secretary of State may specify,
in regulations, the relevant services and the minimum service
levels that will apply. These regulations for passenger rail
specify three categories of services that minimum service levels
apply to, and the associated minimum service levels.
Thecategories are: category A, train operation services; category
B, infrastructure services; and category C, light rail services.
For category A services, the minimum service level is specified
as the
“provision of the train operation services necessary to operate
the equivalent of 40% of the timetabled services operating during
the strike”.
With regard to category B services, the minimum service level is
specified as a list of priority routes to be operated for the
specified hours of 6 am to 10 pm during strike action. The
priority routes are defined in the regulations and listed in the
schedule to the regulations. In addition to the listed priority
routes, the minimum service level also applies to any part of the
network that is within a five-mile radius of the priority routes
and is a loop, siding, or a line that connects the priority
routes to freight terminals, stabling facilities, or depots used
for rolling stock or for plant, equipment, and machinery used in
providing the other infrastructure services. This is to enable
trains to travel to and from berthing areas and terminals to the
priority routes.
With regard to category C services, the minimum service level is
specified as the provision of the train operation services and
infrastructure services necessary to operate the equivalent of
40% of the timetabled services during the period of a strike for
the relevant light rail system.
I now turn back to the amendments to the Motion in the name of
the noble Lord, , and the noble Baroness, Lady
Bennett, and the recent remarks by the Secondary Legislation
Scrutiny Committee to which I previously alluded. I regret that
the impact assessment was not published at the time of the laying
of these regulations. My department has a good track record in
the quality of our impact assessments. It was the right decision
to revise the impact assessment and allow the committee time to
review.
Although I regret that the Regulatory Policy Committee has not
yet been able to issue an opinion, it is important that noble
Lords can scrutinise the impact assessment in this debate, which
is why we have now published the impact assessment. The Act sets
out the framework, and it was correct that these regulations set
out the policy detail of passenger rail minimum service levels.
Each sector being debated today has its own complexities and
operates very differently. There is no one size that fits all
models.
I now turn to the retrospective provisions. The disruption caused
by continuous strike action puts these passenger rail regulations
in a different position to other sectors. The Government have
therefore taken the step of including retrospective provisions to
create certainty for employers that strikes called under mandates
secured before the primary legislation received Royal Assent
would be in scope. This legislation is not intended to prevent
workers from taking strike action. My department launched a
consultation on minimum service levels for passenger rail to
develop a more detailed understanding of how minimum service
levels might impact on staff. This department has at every stage
carefully balanced workers’ continued ability to take strike
action against the needs of people to make essential journeys by
rail. It will be at the discretion of individual employers
whether to issue work notices to deliver minimum service levels.
There are no plans to compel employers to use these regulations.
There is comfort in that the Act includes the safeguard that
employers should not identify more persons than are reasonably
necessary to deliver the minimum service level.
Finally, I turn to the fatal amendment. Tackling strikes in
transport was a 2019 manifesto commitment. As we are seeing now,
when the rail trade unions choose to strike, people, including
doctors, nurses and teachers, experience disruption in accessing
their places of work, schools and vital medical appointments. In
some cases, they are unable to travel at all. If the House
supports this amendment, it will be voting against protecting
passengers from the disproportionate impacts of rail strikes. I
beg to move.
(Lab)
My Lords, it is a great honour for me to speak to this Motion. It
marks my return to the Labour Front Bench, which I am delighted
by.
Alas, I feel a very personal interest in this matter. My father
was a Carlisle railway clerk and a long-standing member of the
Transport Salaried Staffs’ Association. I was so steeped in
Labour and trade union history when I was a student that my
thesis was on railway industrial relations.
Growing up, one of the things that I learned about industrial
relations, particularly on the railways, was that the right to
strike was fundamental but should be used sparingly. Despite
employers and employees sharing common interests, there will be
conflicts of interest. Collective bargaining to resolve those
conflicts will not work unless the unions have the power to
strike, even if they rarely use it. That is of fundamental
importance.
That power is not absolute. As my noble friend said in an earlier debate, it
is not untrammelled. There must be ballots and regulations on
picketing and secondary action. Labour has accepted all that. Our
objection to what is being proposed for the railways is that the
practical effect of these minimum service levels is to eliminate
the right to strike for vast numbers of railway workers—40% by
some estimates.
That is correct—you have to think about it for only a
second—because if you are to run any trains on the principal
parts of the network, you have to keep all the staff in place
necessary to keep the network safe and running. Anyone working in
a signal box has to be on duty, or in a control room; station
staff have to be there, because they play a vital role in
ensuring passenger safety; and the permanent way teams have to be
there to do their work on maintenance of the track. If that does
not happen, you will be running an unsafe railway in an
incredibly short time. As my noble friend said in his remarks about the
border staff, this is a wholly disproportionate measure in the
case of the railways.
7.15pm
I also think—one of the Cross-Benchers has said it—that the
fundamental test of these sorts of regulations is whether they
are likely to reduce industrial action and lead to better
industrial relations. I do not believe that is the case. In fact,
I think these compulsory work notices will lead to more tense and
problematic industrial relations. They will encourage arbitrary
behaviour by management in choosing who it should issue work
notices to, and this is a serious problem. It will all be done by
local managers who will think that if they choose someone they do
not like for a work notice, they would lose the right to claim
unfair dismissal, and that would be very serious indeed.
I also do not like the way in which the processes have been done
on the regulations. Why have the Government suddenly introduced
retrospective application? If that was going to be the case, it
should have been on the face of the Bill. Where has all the new
content about picketing come from? Why was that not on the face
of the Bill? This is introducing major things by statutory
instruments which have not had the proper opportunity for
scrutiny and amendment. Then there is the Minister’s confession
about the regulatory impact assessment: it has come late and
there has been no opportunity for the House to review it.
Some people may think it ironic that we are making these speeches
on the day when ASLEF has called a national rail strike. I do not
think this legislation would have done anything to stop the
strike. What has to stop these strikes is a better government
policy towards rail transport. The Government do not have to be
there when the unions and the rail employers are negotiating,
twisting the arms of the rail employers, as they have been. The
railway faces a very challenging situation. Financially, public
subsidy has gone up—not as a result, by the way, of pay going up,
because pay has actually fallen in real terms in the last year or
two—but the financial position is more difficult. There is a
change in travel patterns, with a collapse in season ticket
revenue and commuter travel following the pandemic, and there is
a huge technological advance that needs to be incorporated in the
way services are run. The truth is that a big agenda of reform is
needed which needs to be worked through via social partnership,
not through this kind of counterproductive legislation. What the
industry needs is a new start and I hope that the coming—and
perhaps soon coming—Labour Government will be able to give
it.
Amendment to the Motion
Moved by
As an amendment to the motion in the name of , to leave out all the
words after “that” and to insert “this House declines to approve
the draft Strikes (Minimum Service Levels: Passenger Railway
Services) Regulations 2023 because they expose trade unions to
liability of up to £1 million, make trade unions act as
enforcement agents on behalf of employers and His Majesty’s
Government, are likely to prohibit more than 40 per cent of rail
industry workers from taking part in strike action, and fail to
ensure that rail services will be safe on strike days.”
(GP)
I am delighted to welcome the noble Lord, , back to the Labour Front
Bench, as I am sure the whole House does. I agree with everything
he said, except to make the point, as I did with the previous
Labour Front Bench speech, that it appears to be more of an
argument for my fatal amendment than for a regret amendment. I
also very much agree with him about the need to change the way in
which our railways are run. If we bring them back into public
hands and run them for public good, not private profit, that
would be a very good foundation for resetting our industrial
relations in the operation of our railways.
I am not going to repeat all the points made by the noble Lord,
. I have one question for the
Minister, raised by the TUC briefing and I have also seen it in
other contexts. If there is a partial service running as required
under the minimum service levels, we all know that there are
likely to be significant overcrowding and safety issues. I am
sure many Members of your Lordships’ House picked up this piece
of paper and thought, “Well, I’d love some minimum service levels
on the trains I ride on non-strike days”. We know how crowded
trains can get when they are cancelled for other reasons. Can the
Minister assure rail workers that they can continue to apply
work-safe principles, and stop working if it is no longer safe
for the trains to continue to run? It needs to be clear that they
will not face legal consequences for making a safety decision. We
do not want what are often not particularly well-paid or senior
staff in a situation where they make decisions with the feeling
that such consequences hang over their head. I beg to move.
(Lab)
My Lords, my criticism of the proposed legislation is a quite
simple one: it will not work. I listened to the Minister who, I
have to say, went through his brief faster than any train I have
been on recently. It is not a new idea. It was considered by the
Thatcher Government and rejected. It was considered by the
Cameron Government and rejected. It will not work. The problem is
that this has been put together by lawyers who have no concept of
how the railway industry actually works, or how train crews are
rostered and how people are laid down for their various duties.
The rostering of train crews is done at local level. The
management and the local district committee—the shop stewards, if
you like—sit down at every timetable change in May and December
to decide the future rosters. The trade union side will obviously
not sit down and discuss rostering under this minimum service
level. As for choosing the name “minimum service level”, what
else have we had in the railway industry for some time but a
minimum service level?
It is not just the Labour Party and the trade union movement that
are against this. The Rail Safety and Standards Board has said
that it has considerable reservations about rail safety in
future. That is not an organisation that one would normally
regard as particularly left wing in its outlook. What the
Government are proposing will poison industrial relations within
the railway industry for years to come.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister. What happens if a
minimum service level driver is rostered and declines to pass
through a picket line at a particular depot? Will the Minister
prosecute the driver or the trade union of which he is a member?
The chance of conflict because of this barmy legislation cannot
be emphasised too much. I said earlier—I do not wish to detain
the House—that it is not just the Labour Party against it. I
commend the Minister to read a paper prepared by Nicholas Finney
OBE for the Centre for Policy Studies, that well-known left-wing
organisation. He attacked the whole concept because, like me, he
says it will not work. Maybe he will be regarded as a destructive
member of British society. He is, or was, the chairman of the
Wantage Conservative association, so if someone like him feels
that this legislation is impractical, the Minister really ought
to look again.
I am almost speechless at the stupidity of the Government
bringing forward this legislation. I repeat that it will poison
industrial relations within the railway industry for years to
come, and I beseech the Minister even at this late hour to take
some proper advice and not to make this into a lawyer’s
dream.
(LD)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord,
. I regard these regulations as
even more inappropriate than the other sets of regulations that
we have just discussed, and even more clearly designed just to
provoke an adverse reaction from the workers concerned.
In the previous regulations, the Government relied on the
argument that the workers concerned—border security staff and
ambulance staff—provide an irreplaceable service. The same is not
true of railways. If the trains are not running we can usually
catch a bus instead, or maybe drive. Obviously rail strikes have
an economic impact, but it is not of the same order as that
caused by ambulance or border staff strikes. You take away the
right to strike only in extreme circumstances, and these are not
extreme circumstances.
The Transport Committee in the other House, which is chaired by a
Conservative MP and has a Conservative majority, has criticised
these regulations and the Government’s plans for the railways. It
questioned whether those plans would do anything to improve
relations with rail employees—I think we can more or less answer
that question here. The committee questioned whether there might
be unintended consequences, in that this could lead to other,
more disruptive forms of industrial action, such as wildcat
strikes. It also asked whether minimum service levels would lead
to better service for customers than that already provided by
train operating companies on strike days. It was deeply
unimpressed by, and expressed its dissatisfaction with, the
Government’s one-sentence answer to its suggestions.
Tomorrow, as the Minister will undoubtedly be aware, is strike
day on Great Western Railway. As on previous strike days, we
regular travellers are informed that a minimum one-hourly service
will be provided between 7 am and 7 pm. In my experience, when
the company says that a train will run at a particular time, it
generally adheres to that timetable—which is not always what we
get on our railways these days. So a minimum service is already
being provided.
Another obvious concern is that, as the noble Lord, , said, rail services are
extremely complex, with major impacts of one part of the service
on other parts of the service, and an obvious interaction with
devolved services. Providing a safe minimum service level is
therefore very complex. As the Transport Committee noted, the
Government have not provided the necessary detail on how they
will provide the safe level of service required. In particular,
the operation of signal services is so specialised that the
provisions will effectively mean that individual staff will have
to be specified as being required to work, if a minimum service
is to be provided. In other words, those staff will have the
right to strike removed from them. In effect, they will lose
their rights.
This is bad legislation, badly planned—and so far, as attempted
by the Government, badly implemented. I am fairly certain that it
will do absolutely nothing to improve either the services for
rail passengers or the situation of our train operating
companies, which are fighting to provide a reasonable service in
difficult circumstances.
7.30pm
(Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have taken part in this
debate for their consideration of these draft regulations. This
is about achieving a balance between the rights of trade union
members and the public’s expectation of being able to travel to
work or, indeed, for any other social reason. At the end of the
day, transport is at the heart of our nation’s success.
A number of questions have been asked, which I will try to
address as briefly as I possibly can. This Government understand
the difficulties imposed on the public by strikes on the
passenger rail network. While it is right that workers are able
to take strike action, it is a priority for the Government to
protect the public and businesses from the disproportionate
impact of strikes, including on people’s ability to make
important journeys and on their livelihoods.
The careful design of the regulations, based on evidence from the
public consultation and further consultation with stakeholders,
means that minimum service levels will deliver a considerable
improvement in service levels and experience during strikes. The
economic damage to businesses and the wider economy would also be
limited, and the industry would have the flexibility it needs to
ensure that the minimum service levels are deliverable. At every
stage of policy development, my department has carefully balanced
workers’ ability to take strike action against the needs of
people to make important journeys by rail, such as to get to work
and to access vital services such as education and healthcare.
Ensuring that this intervention is proportionate has been a
central and continual consideration. Subject to parliamentary
approval, we expect the regulations to come into force before the
end of this year. In-scope employers would then be able to use
minimum service levels for any strike action after they come into
force, should they choose to do so.
I turn to some of the issues raised by the noble Lord, . The Government firmly believe
that the ability to strike is an important part of industrial
relations in the UK, rightly protected by law, and understand
that an element of disruption is inherent to any strike. But we
also need to maintain a reasonable balance with the needs of the
public and the impact of strikes on businesses and the wider
economy. In cases where work notices are issued by employers,
this policy will impact some rail workers’ ability to take strike
action. As such, the department has, at every stage, carefully
balanced workers’ ability to take strike action against the needs
of people to make important journeys by rail.
Evidence provided through consultation and engagement with
industry indicates that the proportion of workers needed to
deliver the minimum service levels will vary by employer and job
role. In critical operational roles, for example, we understand
that more than 40% of staff are likely to be required to work to
deliver a service level of 40% under the categories A and C of
the regulations. The extent of the coverage of priority routes
under category B also means that the proportion of infrastructure
workers required to deliver the infrastructure minimum service
level will vary by geography.
On the safety point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett,
passenger rail employers must comply with safety requirements on
the railway. The regulations do not override any existing safety
rules or obligations. Moreover, the regulations have been
designed to fit within the existing safety frameworks, and the
department has consulted with the Office of Rail and Road during
development.
Where an employer decides to issue a work notice, the Act
requires that the work notice identifies the persons required to
work during the strike in order to secure that the levels of
service are provided and to specify the work required to be
carried out. Employers can identify only persons who are
reasonably necessary to provide the minimum levels of service
under the regulations in the work notice. We consider that this
would include workers who are reasonably necessary to meet legal
and contractual obligations relevant to the delivery of the
minimum service level, including safety obligations.
It is therefore expected that services delivered on strike days
under minimum service levels will be as safe as services
delivered on strike days without the use of minimum service
levels. Great Britain is a world leader in rail safety. Ensuring
high standards of rail safety will always remain a top priority
for this Government.
With respect to the issue raised by the noble Lord, , under the parent Act, trade
unions must take reasonable steps to ensure that any of their
members named on the work notice comply with that notice or the
union will lose its legal protection from damages. Workers who
take strike action despite being included on a valid work notice
will lose their automatic protection from unfair dismissal. It
will be for individual employers to determine whether any
disciplinary action should be taken against employees for
non-compliance with a work notice or legal action against a union
that fails to take reasonable steps.
These regulations strike a carefully balanced and proportionate
approach to mitigate the impact of strikes on the passenger rail
sector for passengers and our economy. The regulations make
possible a considerable improvement in the service that can be
delivered during rail strikes. This will support passengers to
make important journeys, including getting to work and accessing
vital services, and will limit negative impacts on the economy.
This is proportionately balanced with workers’ ability to take
strike action, ensuring that impact is felt when a trade union
goes on strike but passengers can still expect a consistent,
albeit lower, level of service to be provided.
Therefore, although I am sure we all hope that strike action can
be avoided, implementing these regulations will provide a means
of addressing the disproportionate impacts that strikes have on
the public, communities, businesses and our economy when they
take place.
(GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for answering our questions and
for what has been the clearest, least-hedged explanation from the
Government—that workers can be sacked under this legislation,
which of course contradicts what was said in the other place. I
am also pleased with what the Minister had to say about how
safety rules override the regulations we are debating. However, I
hope that the Government will make that fact very clear and
publicise it to workers in the rail industry, who may face
difficult situations under extreme pressure due to crowded trains
and people seeking to crowd on to them, so that people are aware.
I am aware of the hour so I will simply stop at this point and
beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment to the Motion withdrawn.
Amendment to the Motion
Moved by
As an amendment to the motion in the name of , at end to insert “but
that this House regrets that the draft Regulations contain policy
detail that was not included in primary legislation, contrary to
the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform
Committee; that their retrospective element will create
uncertainty; that the impact assessment is not sufficiently
robust; that it is unclear whether contractual relationships will
impact the issue of work notices; and that they may prevent
workers from being able to take industrial action.”
(Lab)
My Lords, I will test the opinion of the House on the amendment
standing in my name but, before that, I thank the Minister for
his carefully considered reply. I did not agree with it, I am
afraid; I just do not think that what is proposed is
proportionate in terms of workers’ right to strike. I sincerely
hope that employers and companies with common sense will not try
to make use of these regulations. In that spirit, I wish to test
the opinion of the House.
Columns 1541 - 1542is located here
[Division 4
Division on Lord Liddle’s amendment to the Motion
Content
116
Not Content
144
Lord Liddle’s amendment to the Motion disagreed.
|
