← Back to House of Commons Debates
Trade Union Bill - Lords Amendment 2D
17 July 2023
Lead MP
Kevin Hollinrake
Debate Type
Bill Debate
Tags
Economy
Other Contributors: 8
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
▸
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.