Commons Sense

House of Commons · Bill Debate

Trade Union Bill - Lords Amendment 2D

17 July 2023 · 8 other contributors

Opened by Kevin Hollinrake Con Thirsk and Malton

Employment

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Kevin Hollinrake raised concerns about trade union bill - lords amendment 2d in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.

Key points

  • Kevin Hollinrake argues against Lords amendment 2D, stating it was previously rejected by the House of Commons.
  • The Government claims the current Bill aligns with international labour obligations.
  • A statutory code of practice will be introduced to offer unions more legal certainty.

How the debate unfolded

MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.

Opened the debate

Kevin Hollinrake Con Thirsk and Malton

Mr. Kevin Hollinrake argues against Lords amendment 2D, emphasising that the House of Commons has already rejected similar amendments twice before. He states that the amendment seeks to expand regulations beyond what was previously rejected by both Houses. The Government maintains that the current Bill is compatible with international labour obligations and includes provisions for consultation when considering minimum service levels in various services such as rail, ambulance, and fire and rescue services. Mr. Hollinrake mentions that a statutory code of practice will be introduced to provide unions with more legal certainty regarding their obligations under new section 234E.

Other contributors (8)
  • Rachael Maskell Lab Co-op York Central

    Ms. Rachael Maskell questions the enforceability of a code that is outside the jurisdiction of trade unions, arguing that it does not give them the necessary powers to implement measures requiring workers to go into work.

  • Alan Brown Unspecified Party Unspecified Constituency

    Mr. Alan Brown inquires why the Minister is rejecting an amendment that confirms a requirement for consultation, despite previously stating willingness to consult on various matters.

  • Justin Madders Lab Ellesmere Port and Bromborough

    Opposes the Bill due to its lack of proper scrutiny, consultation, and clarity. Argues that it infringes on fundamental rights and undermines industrial relations. Highlights concerns about the absence of a concrete plan for minimum service levels and potential negative impacts on services.

  • John Martin McDonnell Lab Hayes and Harlington

    Questions what happens if an employer refuses to comply with the Government's instruction regarding a minimum service level, particularly in the context of London bus companies.

  • Rachael Maskell Lab Co-op York Central

    Notes that NHS Employers and the NHS Confederation have expressed their opposition to similar legislation, suggesting they will not issue minimum service level terms for strikes.

  • Alan Brown Lab Cowdenbeath

    Disagrees with the Government's claim that the Bill saves lives and livelihoods, arguing it makes it easier for employers to sack workers. Supports the Lords' amendment for consultation but criticises its lack of additional protections for unions and workers. Calls out the myth that the UK’s strike legislation aligns with international norms and suggests the Government fears consulting the ILO due to prejudiced evidence against this Bill.

  • Richard Burgon Lab Leeds East

    Argues that the Bill is an attack on trade unions, revealing Government's contempt for workers and modern voting methods. Criticises the requirement in the Bill for unions to break strikes and calls it a tool of state control over trade unions. Emphasises the potential for sacking workers who do not comply with work notices.

  • Kevin Hollinrake Con Thirsk and Malton

    Hollinrake responded by affirming the Government’s commitment to international obligations and announced a new code of practice to provide clarity on the Bill. He urged the House to disagree with Lords amendment 2D, suggesting that this House's view should be respected.

Get updates like this by email
▸ Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy