Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill - Multiple amendments to various clauses, primarily Clause 3 and others concerning strike actions and minimum service levels.

Proposes amendments to limit the Secretary of State's powers in making regulations, requiring parliamentary consent for certain provisions, restricting the application of the Bill outside England, and aligning it with international labour standards.

The amendment aims to ensure minimum service levels in sectors like healthcare, education, and emergency services. Public safety and livelihoods are at risk when essential services do not function during strikes.

The Minister's argument about public safety is a red herring. He cannot justify why education workers are included in the Bill, highlighting the lack of coherent rationale for such broad application.

The Bill is anti-worker and applies to services like fire and rescue, which have seen significant funding cuts. Firefighters are facing real-terms pay cuts and need proper funding and fair treatment rather than punitive legislation.

Asked whether it is acceptable for Members to speak on an issue without declaring interests, suggesting potential conflicts of interest may be relevant in debates.

Asked whether it is necessary for Members who declared their interests during Second Reading to do so again in Committee, citing Erskine May as guidance.

Health and safety legislation was won by workers withdrawing their labour. Nurses and ambulance workers ensure emergency cover is available during strikes, highlighting that they are seeking fair pay and conditions.

Nurses and ambulance staff have always ensured emergency cover during strikes, focusing on staffing and wages rather than disrupting essential services. The Minister needs to understand these workers' demands for better pay.

Opposes the Bill due to its impact on key workers and trade unions. Argues that the legislation is unworkable, undermines existing safety agreements, and poses risks to public services. She calls for a full line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill with adequate time for debate and consultation.

Intervenes to highlight that under this legislation, workers can be sacked for taking strike action which is a gross infringement of working rights. She points out that it goes against the principles set out in the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1992.

Asks if restrictions on police taking strike action are justified, implying similar restrictions for other public services should be considered reasonable.

Questions the legality and fairness of requiring unions to take steps to ensure compliance with work notices under the Bill, suggesting it undermines established legal principles.

Critiques the Minister's performance in opening debates and calls for a 'minimum level of service' from Ministers to match their demands on public workers.

Agrees with the lead MP that current agreements allow for ongoing dialogue and surge staffing needs, questioning the necessity of minimum service levels imposed by the Bill.

Highlights the punitive nature of the Bill which threatens either dismissal or fines for workers and unions, exacerbating industrial relations tensions.

Considers the legislation as a distraction from government incompetence in managing economic affairs and failing to protect public services.

Supports negotiations over a 10-day period for resolving disputes through discussions on pay and conditions, proposing this as an alternative to the Bill's measures.

Responds with a brief interjection disagreeing with Labour MPs but does not provide detailed arguments or evidence.

Indicated dissent but did not provide a full argument in the provided text.

Intervened to argue that the clause or amendment would remove unfair dismissal protection from workers and force trade unions into coercive roles, undermining existing legal protections for union members. Cited 35 years of legislation prohibiting unions from disciplining members who refuse to strike.

Called out the lengthiness of interventions and reminded Members about intervention rules.

Supports the Bill's aim but criticises Clause 3 for its use of Henry VIII clauses, arguing they are bad parliamentary and constitutional practice. He raises concerns over the lack of detail in the clause and suggests it should be clarified to avoid judicial review. Emphasises that this is not emergency legislation and questions why such wide-ranging powers are necessary.

Mr Julian Lewis interjected during the debate, suggesting that the Bill lacks sufficient detail and gives too much discretion to Ministers regarding adequate service levels. He referenced a point made by a regional TUC representative concerning the need for more involvement of unions in determining minimum service levels.

No extracted contribution text available for this contributor yet.

Intervened to emphasise that the Minister is inconsistent in denying the possibility of dismissal under the Bill when it explicitly states that sacked individuals have no right to an industrial tribunal.

Asked Alan Brown which party blocked the devolution of employment law in Scotland, reinforcing the need for parliamentary sovereignty.

Requested clarification from Alan Brown on which party blocked the devolution of employment law to Scotland.

Repeatedly asked for confirmation that Labour was responsible for blocking the devolution of employment law in Scotland.

MP supports balancing workers' rights with societal needs. He argues for reasonable legislative steps to ensure public services function under pressure, noting existing legislation on police strikes. Emphasises unions focus on short-term interests over broader societal impact, comparing them to historical luddites. Points out inconsistencies in Labour's stance regarding European examples and the need for tailored domestic policy.

Supports the stance that the Government’s attitude increases support for strong industrial action and encourages many people wanting fairer society to support this wave of industrial action.

Asked what would be the duty of care from employer to employee if workers were instructed by their boss to cross picket lines, affecting wellbeing and mental health.

Highlighted that for some workers this takes away the whole right to strike, such as in air traffic control and rail signalmen roles. This process extends denial of the right to strike to whole batches of workers.

Argues against Labour's amendments, stating that minimum service levels are appropriate in sectors deemed essential by the International Labour Organisation. Emphasises the need for necessary and proportionate restrictions on striking rights.

Intervenes to challenge Laura Farris, questioning her interpretation of ILO support and referencing the ILO director general's concerns about the Bill.

Asks Laura Farris if she can point to any country in Europe with Government-enforced minimum standards without negotiation or arbitration, questioning the legality of the measures under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Encourages order during interventions and reminds MPs to respect time limits for speeches.

Proposes an alternative amendment that calls on the Government to ensure minimum service levels do not exceed those provided in the previous 12 months. Argues that this would focus attention on improving public services rather than blaming workers.

Speaks against amendments, particularly those that limit public sector workers' right to strike. Argues for balancing workers' rights with public access to essential services and safety of strikes. Mentions constituents in Southend have not joined national strikes but expresses concern about disruptions elsewhere. Points out the impact on education, citing examples from her constituency where nearly 900 pupils will be affected by school closures due to planned strikes.

Intervenes to suggest a requirement for minimum notice periods so that schools can inform parents about closures ahead of time.

Questions Anna Firth, seeking clarification on why ordinary people's rights to access essential services should be compromised. Expresses confusion over the Opposition’s stance and asserts that constituents have a fundamental right to send their children to school, receive healthcare, and travel for work without disruption.

Rises but is interrupted by Tonia Antoniazzi's intervention before making a full speech.

Ms Winter argues against the Bill, stating that it overrules devolved powers and conflicts with Wales’ approach to industrial relations. She cites First Minister Mark Drakeford’s statement and the Counsel General Mick Antoniw’s position in the Senedd, highlighting the Welsh Government's opposition to the Bill.

[INTERVENTION] Ms Saville-Roberts interjected to support Ms Winter’s argument, emphasising the success of the co-operative approach in Wales and its positive impact on service delivery.

Mr. Stephens criticises the Government for ignoring existing legislation, specifically section 240 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 which ensures life and limb cover during disputes with custodial sentences if not provided. He argues that employers seek higher service levels on strike days than normal working days and proposes amendment 39 to prevent this. He also raises concerns about devolution, stating that the Bill would allow for minimum service level imposition by the Secretary of State in Wales and Scotland.

Mr. Sam Tarry interjects to support Mr. Stephens, pointing out that local agreements during the recent ambulance and paramedic strikes effectively protected for life and limb.

Mr. Edward Leigh interjects to ask how the right to life and limb in existing legislation would cover a strike that stops all trains, questioning the adequacy of current protections.

Mr. Andy McDonald interjects to clarify that 'transport services' under the Bill have a UK-wide jurisdiction, challenging the Minister's assertion that it does not cover buses.

Argues that the Bill undermines worker protections and safety in healthcare. Highlights that without adequate impact assessments, services may become less safe with increased fatalities. Emphasises the importance of meaningful negotiations between employers and workers to resolve disputes rather than enacting restrictive legislation.

Supports amendments 91 and 92, affirming trade unions' democratic principles. Criticises the Government's failure to engage in meaningful dialogue with workers and highlights the Bill as undermining basic democratic rights. Argues that the Bill is undemocratic and will cause lasting harm to democracy without proper scrutiny.

Raises concerns about the Bill's compliance with European human rights law, suggesting that it does not adequately protect workers' right to strike. Proposes amendments to ensure public safety and health are prioritised; include safeguards against excessive regulations; and allow for collective bargaining before imposing minimum service levels.

Amendments 78, 95, and 96 focus on work notices that instruct people to work during strike days. Refusal to comply will lead to dismissal, stripping workers of unfair dismissal protections. The legislation targets trade union representatives and could be used by unscrupulous employers against those advocating for worker rights. This undermines the basic right to withdraw labour and threatens mental health in the workplace. It is a bosses' charter that lacks transparency and consultation with unions, making it draconian and unsafe.

Supporting my colleague's stance, I highlight the importance of retaining protections against unfair dismissal. The amendments lack transparency as there is no requirement for impact assessments or health and safety reviews before implementing minimum service level regulations. This undermines collective bargaining in the public sector which ensures motivated employees and successful workplaces. Instead of attacking trade unions and workers, we should work with them to ensure better outcomes for both employers and employees.

Mr. Newlands argued that the amendments would prevent a Westminster power grab from devolved administrations, ensuring voters retain control over their own industrial relations policies.

Interjected to note that Mr. Newlands was wearing a three-piece suit, indirectly supporting the historical context of Scotland's rejection of Conservative legislation.

He argues that the UK already has restrictive trade union laws, and the Bill would push this further away from democratic practice in Europe. He cites claims about economic costs and wage disputes but emphasises that these are just excuses for anti-trade union legislation.

Intervened to ask if an individual worker should be required to give notice of whether they intend to strike, similar to the requirement on trade unions. He argues that this would allow for planning in educational settings.

The Bill is wrong because it interferes with trade unions’ right to strike, and the legislation has been rushed. The Government uses Henry VIII powers excessively without proper impact assessments, which affects vulnerable people negatively. The context of anti-trade union laws in other countries is different from that here; sanctions are harsher in the UK. The Bill also breaches manifesto commitments. Pay freezes have been imposed despite high inflation rates.

Intervened briefly to acknowledge respect for trade unions while raising the question of whether the interests of workers in small and medium-sized enterprises and self-employed individuals are being adequately addressed alongside those in large unionised organisations.

Amendment 86 seeks to ensure employers consult recognised trade unions before imposing work notices. It addresses the lopsided relationship put forward in the Bill, which grants excessive powers to the Secretary of State and restricts democratic rights. The amendment is necessary to prevent arbitrary dismissals and support fair industrial relations.

Ms Peacock opposes the Government's proposed measures, citing that the decision to go on strike is a last resort for workers. She argues against sacking workers for non-compliance with work notices and highlights how such actions disproportionately affect key industries like transport and education in her constituency. She also raises concerns about the impact of the Bill on unionised workers and its potential to target activists, advocating instead for fair wages as an incentive for reducing strikes.

My hon. Friend pointed out that there is no other place in Europe where an employee can be dismissed without a right to a tribunal as proposed under this legislation, highlighting the uniqueness and potentially harmful nature of these provisions.

My hon. Friend argued that instead of attacking working people and families, the Government should focus on targeting tax avoiders and those wasting public funds to address issues like industrial disputes.

This is an authoritarian and undemocratic Bill. The proposed amendments are designed to enhance parliamentary scrutiny, constrain unreasonable powers of the Secretary of State, protect workers and trade unions by making co-operation with work notices voluntary on the part of employees, provide that a failure to comply with the work notice will not mean a breach of contract or provide grounds for dismissal or detriment, and limit the reasonable steps that a trade union must take.

When we legislate in Parliament, we do not legislate for the good; we legislate for the bad. This legislation could be used by a bad employer to target trade unionists and ensure they are sacked.

I rise to speak in favour of amendments 80, 84, 97, 20, 83, 93, 85, 95, 92, new clause 1 and all amendments tabled by the Opposition Front Bench. This is a pernicious Bill designed to target workers who were clapped from doorsteps during the pandemic. I support Labour’s amendments to safeguard protections against unfair dismissal.

The amendments are needed to protect the public from a Government who seek to bypass democracy, ignore devolved autonomy, and undermine legal principles. They aim to prevent the Government from amending legislation in private, safeguarding workers' rights and unions’ ability to organise. The Bill lacks provisions for realistic minimum service levels, fails to ensure fair representation of members during disputes, and disregards international law.

The Bill is an attack on trade unions and workers' rights to negotiate pay and conditions. It fails to provide the minimum service levels needed, supports strikes for better pay in response to cost of living crises caused by the Government, and denigrates the role of unions in ensuring fair working conditions.

Supports opposition amendments; criticises the Bill as anti-democratic, unethical and unworkable. Highlights wage squeeze in public services leading to strikes. Suggests alternative methods like tax recovery instead of restricting workers' rights. Emphasises 13 years of Tory mismanagement affecting public services and public servants.

Defends Government stance on maintaining a balance between workers' right to strike and public service delivery. Acknowledges disruption but emphasises need for protection of essential services during strikes.

Questions legal precedence between Employment Rights Act 1996 and proposed Bill, arguing for potential conflict. Insists on clarification from Government about compliance expectations under new legislation.

Critiques Minister’s lack of legal interpretation in debate, urging immediate definition of reasonable steps expected from unions to comply with new laws.

Points out opposition by Welsh and Scottish Governments, questioning Government's approach towards devolution settlement while pushing through legislation.

The Bill is impractical, insulting and a vindictive assault on key workers' rights. It undermines the basic freedom of working people, fails to address workforce shortages, and exemplifies incompetent governance.

The Bill is poorly conceived and contradicts international labour standards. It threatens key workers with the sack and undermines devolution, allowing UK Government to amend devolved legislation.

The Bill is provocative and will exacerbate industrial disputes. It risks damaging the economy and society when trade unionists are sacked or fined for their actions.