Trade Union Bill - Lords amendments 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7; Government motion to disagree

She argues against the Government motion and supports the Lords amendments, highlighting the need for negotiation in establishing minimum service levels. She mentions several other amendments to be discussed alongside Lord's amendment 1.

Questions whether workers are fired for striking in countries with minimum service provisions. He criticises the UK Government's disregard for devolved Administrations' opposition to the Bill.

Asks why the Minister is ignoring concerns raised by organisations like the TUC and EHRC. Emphasises that many of these concerns are echoed in amendments from the Lords.

Raises concerns about the Bill's compliance with human rights and international labour standards. She argues that the Government should reconsider its stance given the widespread opposition from various organisations.

Claims that the impact assessment suggests the Bill is ineffective and could worsen industrial relations. He questions why employers also oppose the legislation.

Highlights that NHS providers, employers and unions all agree that the Bill is unhelpful. She criticises the Minister for going against these stakeholders.

Supports a Lords amendment asking for consultation before implementing further legislation. He provides an example from his constituency to illustrate why this is necessary.

Questions how the Bill complies with International Labour Organisation conventions and seeks clarity on potential consequences for workers under such legislation.

Comments that Lords amendments show a better understanding of workplace issues compared to the Government's stance. He asks if there are examples where workers face dismissal for striking.

Supports the concept of minimum service levels and believes it is an idea whose time has come. He raises the issue of Solent ferries as a lifeline service for constituents.

Reiterates his earlier point about unions' roles in representing their members during strikes, questioning how forcing workers to comply with work notices aligns with justice and morality.

Labour Members oppose the Bill and will reject attempts by the Government to remove Lords amendments. They argue that the Bill is unworkable, unnecessary, and a threat to workers' rights and public services.

Intervened by agreeing that nurses are taking action to protect patients, highlighting cases where there are only two nurses managing a ward of 30 patients.

Agrees that minimum service levels set out in the Bill are often not met during normal working times, questioning its effectiveness.

Intervened by noting that the Regulatory Policy Committee's opinion rated the Government’s impact assessment for the Bill as 'not fit for purpose', agreeing with the criticism.

Asked whether Labour recognises the need to fully devolve employment law to Scotland, questioning the extent of Lords amendment 1's territorial application.

Supports Lords amendment 1 as it respects the devolved Administrations' wishes. Criticises Labour's previous abstention on amendment 32 regarding Scottish Parliament consent and questions their commitment to repealing the legislation if in power. Emphasises that employment law should be devolved due to better trade union relations in Scotland, resulting in less strike action. Advocates for transparency through Lords amendment 2 by requiring Government consultations and impact assessments. Supports Lords amendments 4 and 5 as they rectify pernicious aspects of the Bill, protecting individual rights against sackable offences and removing obligations on unions.

Mary Foy argues that the Bill is autocratic, undemocratic and unworkable due to its Henry VIII powers. She highlights historical attempts by Conservative governments to suppress workers' rights and emphasises the fundamental right to strike as part of freedom of association. Foy also criticises the lack of negotiation with trade unions and notes that austerity measures have worsened industrial conditions. She supports amendments from the House of Lords aimed at putting more flesh on the Bill's framework, while condemning its impact on devolution and worker safety.

David Linden criticises the Conservative Government for not taking seriously their promise to 'take back control' by failing to attend debates. He supports Lords amendments, particularly those that protect devolution and human rights principles. Linden argues that Scotland’s approach to dealing with trade unions demonstrates a more effective partnership method rather than using legislation as a wedge issue. He also points out the inconsistency in territorial application of employment law across the UK.

Christine Jardine supports Lords amendments 4 and 5, arguing that they protect the right to withdraw labour and prevent unfair dismissals. She shares personal experience of witnessing a loved one being sacked for striking in Aberdeen, underscoring her opposition to the Bill's clauses that undermine these rights.

Interjected to indicate dissent, highlighting that the Bill may hinder negotiations between employers and workers, making it difficult for unions to negotiate fair deals.

Declares support for Lords amendments 4 and 5, arguing they address fundamental issues with the Bill such as its infringement on workers' rights, potential exploitation by employers through work notices, and the undermining of trade unions. He emphasises that these amendments are essential to protect worker autonomy and fair treatment.

Supports Lords amendments 4 and 5, stating the Bill is a fundamental attack on workers' rights. She highlights issues like potential employer misuse of work notices to target union members, undermining lawful strikes, and excessive penalties for non-compliance with work orders. Peacock also raises concerns about international precedents where minimum service levels have led to more days lost to strikes.

Burgon supports Lords amendments aimed at protecting workers' rights to strike and the role of trade unions. He claims these amendments are necessary because they defend democratic principles against Government encroachment on labour rights.

Turner congratulates Burgon for a strong speech and supports the idea that Labour Members are protesting outside Parliament in defence of democratic freedoms. He implies that Government Back Benchers lack confidence to defend the Bill.

Stephens argues against the Bill's employer-centric approach and supports Lords amendments 4, 5-7. He criticises the Government for opposing an amendment that would make it the employer’s responsibility to serve a work notice.

Thewliss agrees with Stephens' points, highlighting improved industrial relations in Scotland under devolved governance compared to Westminster’s approach.

Lavery argues that the bill is anti-worker and aims to undermine collective bargaining. He stresses that it could lead to unfair dismissals, especially for those unaware of work notices or under pressure from employers or government. Lavery also criticises the lack of measures ensuring minimum service on non-strike days.

Hollinrake defends the bill as a necessary balance between workers' right to strike and the public's rights. He references international examples where strikes are restricted in certain sectors, arguing that existing restrictions on armed forces, police, and prison officers set precedents for this legislation. Hollinrake cites public opinion surveys supporting the bill.