← Back to House of Commons Debates
Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill - Multiple amendments to various clauses, primarily Clause 3 and others concerning strike actions and minimum service levels.
30 January 2023
Lead MP
Nigel Evans
Debate Type
Bill Debate
Tags
EconomyEmployment
Other Contributors: 75
At a Glance
Nigel Evans raised concerns about strikes (minimum service levels) bill - multiple amendments to various clauses, primarily clause 3 and others concerning strike actions and minimum service levels. in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
Nigel Evans proposes multiple amendments to ensure checks on the power of regulations, including requiring parliamentary consent for certain provisions. He emphasises limiting the Secretary of State's powers in making consequential provision and regulations without prior agreement from key stakeholders such as trade unions and employers. He also aims to restrict the application of the Bill outside England and align it with international labour standards.
Nigel Evans
Con
Cannock Chase
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.
Kevin Hollinrake
Con
Thirsk and Malton
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.
Alan Brown
Lab
Motherwell and Wishaw
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.
Zarah Sultana
Lab
Coventry South
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.
Rother Valley
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.
David Linden
Lab
Dunfermline and West Fife
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.
Barry Gardiner
Lab
Brent North
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.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
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.
Angela Rayner
Lab
Ashton-under-Lyne
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.
Ellie Reeves
Lab
Lewisham West and East Dulwich
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.
Kieran Mullan
Con
Bexhill and Battle
Asks if restrictions on police taking strike action are justified, implying similar restrictions for other public services should be considered reasonable.
Barry Gardiner
Lab
Brent West
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.
Mike Amesbury
Lab
Unknown Constituency
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.
Rachael Maskell
Lab Co-op
York Central
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.
Hayes and Harlington
Highlights the punitive nature of the Bill which threatens either dismissal or fines for workers and unions, exacerbating industrial relations tensions.
Rushanara Ali
Lab
Bethnal Green and Stepney
Considers the legislation as a distraction from government incompetence in managing economic affairs and failing to protect public services.
Ian Lavery
Lab
Blyth and Ashington
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.
Kevin Hollinrake
Con
Thirsk and Malton
Responds with a brief interjection disagreeing with Labour MPs but does not provide detailed arguments or evidence.
Kevin Hollinrake
Con
Thirsk and Malton
Indicated dissent but did not provide a full argument in the provided text.
Barry Gardiner
Lab
Brent West
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.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Con
North East Somerset
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.
Julian Lewis
Con
New Forest East
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.
Ian Lavery
Lab
Blyth and Ashington
No extracted contribution text available for this contributor yet.
Chris Stephens
SNP
Glasgow South West
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.
Gavin Newlands
SNP
Paisley and Renfrewshire North
Asked Alan Brown which party blocked the devolution of employment law in Scotland, reinforcing the need for parliamentary sovereignty.
David Linden
SNP
Glasgow East
Requested clarification from Alan Brown on which party blocked the devolution of employment law to Scotland.
Amy Callaghan
SNP
West Dunbartonshire
Repeatedly asked for confirmation that Labour was responsible for blocking the devolution of employment law in Scotland.
Kieran Mullan
Con
Bexhill and Battle
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.
Jeremy Corbyn
Ind
Islington North
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.
Ian Lavery
Lab
Blyth and Ashington
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.
John McDonnell
Lab
Hayes and Harlington
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.
Laura Farris
Con
Newbury
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.
Richard Burgon
Lab
Leeds East
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.
Rosie Winterton
Con
Doncaster Central
Encourages order during interventions and reminds MPs to respect time limits for speeches.
Christine Jardine
Lib Dem
Edinburgh West
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.
Anna Firth
Con
Southend West
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.
David Simmonds
Con
Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner
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.
Ian Lavery
Lab
Blyth and Ashington
Rises but is interrupted by Tonia Antoniazzi's intervention before making a full speech.
Beth Winter
Lab
Rotherham
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.
Dwyfor Meirionnydd
[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.
Chris Stephens
SNP
Glasgow South West
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.
Sam Tarry
Lab
Ilford South
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.
Edward Leigh
Con
Gainsborough
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.
Andy McDonald
Lab
Middlesbrough and Thornaby East
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.
Rachael Maskell
Lab Co-op
York Central
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.
Joanna Cherry
SNP
Edinburgh South
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.
Ian Lavery
Lab
Blyth and Ashington
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.
Vicky Foxcroft
Lab
Lewisham North
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.
Gavin Newlands
SNP
Paisley and Renfrewshire North
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.
David Linden
Lab
Kilbirnie
Interjected to note that Mr. Newlands was wearing a three-piece suit, indirectly supporting the historical context of Scotland's rejection of Conservative legislation.
Richard Burgon
Lab
Leeds East
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.
David Simmonds
Con
Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner
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.
Clapham and Brixton Hill
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.
David Simmonds
Con
Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner
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.
Sam Tarry
Lab
Tottenham
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.
Barnsley South
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.
Chris Stephens
Lab
Glasgow South West
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.
Drew Hendry
Lab
Inverness N & Highland East
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.
Salford
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.
John McDonnell
Lab
Hayes and Harlington
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.
Ian Byrne
Lab
Liverpool West Derby
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.
Claudia Webbe
SNP
West Dunbartonshire
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.
Tahir Ali
Lab
Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley
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.
Mary Foy
Lab
City of Durham
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.
Kevin Hollinrake
Con
Thirsk and Malton
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.
Andy McDonald
Lab
Middlesbrough and Thornaby East
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.
Hayes and Harlington
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.
Angela Rayner
Lab
Ashton-under-Lyne
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.
Alan Brown
SNP
Unspecified Constituency
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.
Hayes and Harlington
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.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.