Mr. Alan Brown questions the lack of obligation to consult as proposed in the schedule and raises concerns about transparency following a closed consultation, emphasising the importance of future consultations.

Ms. Rachael Maskell queries the Government's timescale and method for carrying out consultation, underlining the need for detailed planning and transparency.

Ms. Christine Jardine stresses that the Government must ensure fair and balanced minimum service levels without affecting workers' right to strike, questioning how this can be achieved in light of rejecting certain Lords amendments.

Mr. Chris Stephens highlights the potential for employers to dismiss workers participating in industrial action without recourse if the Government's proposal is adopted, arguing this undermines workers' rights to strike.

Mr. Jim Shannon argues that strikes should remain a last resort for voiceless and invisible workers, insisting on the necessity of maintaining strong protections for the right to strike.

Supports Justin Madders' argument about the intrusion on trade union activities and undermining workers’ rights to representation, citing concerns from doctors in her constituency.

Emphasises that individual members of a trade union determine what happens within it and questions how the Government expects individual workers to instruct others to attend work.

Interjects to support Madders' argument about the Prime Minister's lack of leadership and views the Bill as a desperate attempt by a weakening Government to shift blame onto trade unions.

Supports the amendment to protect workers who have been dismissed so that they can seek recourse through tribunals, highlighting this as a fundamental human right.

Mr. Brown argues against the Government's claim that adequate consultation requirements are in place, citing proposed new section 234F of the 1992 Act which allows the Secretary of State to consult only who they consider appropriate and subsection (5) allowing consultations before the Bill’s passing, indicating lack of transparency. He supports Lords amendment 4B for its protection against malicious employer targeting and supports proposed new subsections that ensure workers are not dismissed without proper evidence of receipt of work notices. Mr. Brown also criticises the government's approach to unions in amendments 5B, 5C and 5D as an attempt to break union power by forcing them into compliance with employers’ demands, contrary to their members' interests.

Argues against government's opposition to Lords amendments 4B and 5B, emphasising protection of employees from dismissal for lawful strike participation and safeguarding the independence of trade unions. Highlights that failure to support these amendments undermines workers' rights and democratic principles.

Stresses the significance of Lords amendment 2B, advocating for detailed consultation on trade union legislation to prevent issues like air traffic controllers losing their right to strike. Warns that without such amendments, individuals may face dismissal for lawful strike participation with no legal recourse.

Questions the government's opposition to Lords amendment 4B, emphasising its importance in ensuring fair treatment of workers who participate in strikes. Raises concerns about employers dismissing employees without evidence and denies them access to employment tribunals.

The Conservative MP supports the legislation, arguing it provides a balanced approach that ensures essential services can operate safely while still allowing for strikes. He cites 600,000 cancelled appointments due to recent strikes and £3.2 billion economic detriment affecting businesses such as pub landlords, restauranteurs, hoteliers, and individuals seeking urgent medical care or work access.

[Intervention] Argues that supporting the amendment does not equate to banning strikes altogether, questioning if the Conservative stance effectively leads to such an outcome.

[Intervention] Requests clarification on who the Minister believes should be permitted to strike under his proposed measures, challenging the definition of eligible strikers.

[Intervention] Challenges the characterization of obliging employers to ensure employees receive work notices as a 'wrecking amendment', questioning the fairness and necessity of such a designation.