Trade Union Act [HL] - Clause 1

Steve McCabe Lab

Birmingham Selly Oak

Questioned whether withdrawing workers' rights is what the Government intends and challenged the Secretary of State to address fundamental issues such as poverty pay, stress, bad conditions, and inadequate service rather than legally constraining trade unions.

Richard Burgon Lab

Leeds East

Cited concerns from Human Rights Watch about the systematic dismantling of fundamental rights in the UK and questioned whether this anti-strike legislation is part of that danger.

Karl Turner Lab

Kingston upon Hull East

Highlighted the lack of minimum safety standards in the NHS as a result of Tory policies and challenged the Secretary of State to acknowledge this issue before discussing anything else.

Alan Brown SNP

Central Ayrshire

Asked why the word “safety” is not used once in the Bill or its explanatory notes, questioning the Government's intentions regarding minimum service levels.

Rachael Maskell Lab Co-op

York Central

Challenged the Secretary of State to acknowledge that trade unions work with staff and employers to put a safe agreement in place, highlighting his lack of experience in this regard.

Joanna Cherry SNP

Edinburgh South West

Questioned the change in Government’s legal advice regarding emergency and patient care services, fire and rescue, or education, challenging whether it is a matter of political convenience.

Amy Callaghan Lab

Warrington South

Accused the Secretary of State of fabricating issues in the NHS and claimed that life-and-limb cover already exists in legislation, suggesting this Bill is an attempt to erode workers’ rights.

Richard Graham Con

Gloucester

Defended the Secretary of State against accusations from Labour Members and emphasised that people in constituencies need a minimum service regardless of the right to hold back labour.

Chris Bryant Lab

Rhondda

Questioned whether this legislation can actually resolve current disputes and if it will make securing resolutions more difficult, calling it political posturing.

Vicky Ford Con

Chelmsford

Asked whether her Chelmsford constituents should have similar benefits on strike days as those in France, Italy and Spain. Implied that UK workers should have equivalent protections.

Florence Eshalomi Lab Co-op

Vauxhall and Camberwell Green

Cited OECD data showing France, Spain and Italy lost significantly more strike days than the UK. Suggested the law was to ban legal strikes.

Siobhan Baillie Con

Gloucestershire

Focused on Gloucestershire, thanking nurses for not striking and supporting strike rights. Emphasised minimal standards are needed for public services.

Peter Dowd Lab

Bootle

Asked why voluntary options were ruled out, implying they could be more effective in resolving disputes. Questioned the basis of the Government's decision.

Tommy Sheppard

Inquired how many people died due to recent industrial unrest who would not have died if this Bill had been in force. Questioned its effectiveness and impact on public safety.

Nadia Whittome Lab

Nottingham East

Called out the irony of expecting unions to ensure safe service levels during strikes while government fails to do so otherwise. Cited nurses’ reports suggesting staffing was safer on strike days.

Angela Rayner Lab

Ashton-under-Lyne

The Bill is irrational, insulting and a vindictive assault on British working people's basic freedoms. It does not resolve economic crises caused by Conservative failures. It undermines public service trust and is unnecessary.

Kim Leadbeater Lab

Spen Valley

The legislation does nothing to address underlying reasons for strikes and wastes time instead of resolving disputes through negotiation. Time would be better spent negotiating with NHS staff.

Chris Stephens

Section 240 of the Trade Union Act already mandates life-and-limb cover during disputes, making this Bill unnecessary and punitive towards striking workers. It is an attack on fundamental rights.

Ellie Reeves Lab

Lewisham West and East Dulwich

The Bill attacks workers' rights like previous anti-trade union legislation under this Government. It is an attack on working people who keep us safe, day in and day out.

Charlotte Nichols Lab

Warrington North

The Bill covers up the Secretary of State's failure to negotiate basic trade union agreements. Every other dispute with the RMT has been resolved.

Dan Carden Lab

Liverpool Walton

Concern that this Bill could allow bad bosses to victimise and target workers by deciding who can go on strike or not.

Priti Patel Con

Witham

MP Patel emphasises the importance of frontline public sector workers and praises their dedication. She supports providing them with necessary resources within budget constraints, highlighting a 5% pay increase for police officers funded from existing Home Office budgets. She criticises current strike actions as counterproductive, affecting essential services such as border control, healthcare, and daily commuting. MP Patel warns of the detrimental impact on small businesses operating on tight margins. She also points out that some trade unions are motivated by political satisfaction rather than genuine worker concerns.

Janet Daby Lab

Lewisham East

Intervened briefly to question whether the Secretary of State's own colleagues believe that the Bill will not solve the strikes, implying a lack of effectiveness or support for the proposed legislation.

Alan Brown Lab

Cowdenbeath

He argues that this is an attack on workers' rights to strike and democracy. He criticises the Government's claim about safety, pointing out that the term 'safety' does not appear in the Bill or its explanatory notes. Brown mentions a series of government actions aimed at weakening trade unions, including the Trade Union Act 2016 and legislation allowing employers to hire agency staff during strikes. He also criticises the Government for imposing this legislation on devolved nations despite their opposition. Additionally, he argues that the proposed legislation would undermine worker relationships and make negotiations more difficult.

Iain Stewart Con

Glasgow South West

Supports the bill's objective but raises practical issues. Highlights the need for clarity on how rail, aviation and bus systems will operate under minimum service levels during strikes.

Darren Jones Lab

Bristol North West

Argues against the necessity of the Bill, emphasising existing laws and voluntary agreements that maintain safety standards. Criticises the Government for introducing legislation without a clear rationale or due process.

Saqib Bhatti Con

Meriden and Solihull East

Supports the Bill as fulfilling a duty to protect constituents from strikes that put lives at risk. Emphasises fairness in balancing workers' rights with public safety, referencing international practices.

Kate Osborne Lab

Jarrow and Gateshead East

Ms. Osborne criticised the Government's attempts to restrict workers' rights through legislation, arguing that it divides communities and undermines democracy. She cited examples of constituents who are angry about the Government's handling of disputes, emphasising that minimum service levels already exist within public services such as the NHS and education. She also highlighted the economic struggles faced by her constituents due to rising food and energy bills, and argued that the Bill will only exacerbate these issues.

Ben Spencer Con

Runnymede and Weybridge

Mr. Spencer supported minimum service levels for critical services such as education, health care, and emergency services. He argued that the Labour party's opposition to these levels ignores the rights of working families and students if schools close, parents who rely on ambulance services in emergencies, and commuters whose livelihoods are affected by rail strikes. He emphasised his commitment to protecting public services and criticised unions for being intransigent.

Vicky Foxcroft Lab

Lewisham North

Ms. Foxcroft declared her membership of Unite the union and GMB, asserting that trade unions are essential for workers' rights and workplace productivity. She highlighted the impracticality of minimum service levels in stopping strikes, citing examples from France and Spain, where such laws did not prevent strike days. She argued against the lack of clarity on what constitutes a 'minimum level of service,' fearing it would restrict workers' freedoms unduly.

Laura Farris Con

Dover

She emphasised that other countries like the United States, Canada, Australia, Italy, Spain have established minimum service levels for public services. She argued that these measures are consistent with international law and necessary to maintain essential services during strikes.

Dawn Butler Lab

Brent East

She criticised the Bill as dishonest and an insult to trade unions, arguing it undermines parliamentary procedures by allowing for wide Henry VIII powers. She highlighted that safety is not addressed in the Bill and called on the Government to negotiate compulsory arbitration or mediation instead.

Chris Loder Con

Scarborough and North Yorks

Welcomed the Bill as a necessary balance between striking rights and citizens' access to key services. Argued that strikes are excessive, with some groups on strike for over six months. Criticised unions and Labour party's close relationship, highlighting financial influence of trade unions on Opposition MPs. Emphasised the need for tempering union power to protect hard-working members from being used as political pawns.

Owen Thompson Lab

Torfaen

Critiqued the Bill's restrictive nature, comparing it to authoritarian measures in other countries. Highlighted strikes as a symptom of poor public service management by the Government and defended unions for protecting workers' rights during economic hardship. Stressed the importance of maintaining fair negotiating power between employers and employees.

Gagan Mohindra Con

South West Hertfordshire

Emphasised the need for a balance between union rights and public service needs, particularly in his constituency. Noted the difficulty faced by non-union workers during strikes and highlighted potential economic impacts on urban areas reliant on small businesses and commuters.

Sarah Owen Lab

Luton North

Owen argues against restrictions on striking rights for public sector workers, stating it is not their fault that services are underfunded. She shares personal experience working in public service and emphasises trade unions' role in protecting worker's rights.

Ruth Edwards

Edwards supports the bill, arguing it is about balancing the right to strike with the rights of other constituents. She points out that many countries have restrictions on strikes in essential services and criticises Labour for being influenced by union donations.

Clive Lewis Lab

Norwich South

Lewis argues the bill is part of a trend that transfers power away from workers and citizens. He references previous legislation and states it limits democratic rights, aligning with an anti-worker agenda.

Chris Clarkson Con

Heywood and Middleton

Supports the amendment as it ensures vital services are not disrupted during strikes. Highlights the negative impact of recent strikes on rail, education, healthcare, and hospitality sectors, costing billions and causing significant inconvenience to citizens who rely on these services.

Florence Eshalomi Lab Co-op

Vauxhall and Camberwell Green

Intervened to challenge the perception that trade unions are holding public hostage, suggesting a need for dialogue rather than demonisation.

Ian Byrne Lab

Liverpool West Derby

Opposes the Bill as it attacks and demoralises public service workers who take industrial action. Argues that these strikes are a result of 12 years of austerity, leading to wage stagnation and food poverty among public sector workers. Criticises the Government for failing to negotiate meaningfully with trade unions and introduces the concept of moral bankruptcy in governance.

Angela Richardson

Supports the Bill, citing its alignment with other industrialised nations' practices. Highlights the impact of strikes on her constituents, particularly regarding train services and border delays. Argues that the legislation reflects public support as indicated by a recent YouGov poll.

Joanna Cherry Edinburgh South West SNP

Ms. Cherry argues against the Bill, stating that it is not about safety but rather minimum service levels. She contends that claims of reflecting European standards are inaccurate and risks breaching human rights laws. The bill's proposals go further than previous measures and could be in conflict with international labour law. She asserts that key workers strike due to wage stagnation and economic hardships.

Anna Firth Southend West Conservative

Ms. Firth supports the Bill, arguing it ensures minimum levels of safety and service in essential public services. She highlights the fairness aspect by mentioning that strikes disproportionately affect poorer people in her constituency who cannot afford alternatives. Ms. Firth also emphasises balancing the right to strike with a duty to provide a baseline level of service funded by taxpayers.

Barry Gardiner Lab

Brent West

Critiques the Bill as an affront to Parliament and a threat to industrial relations, arguing it undermines the unity of the UK. Warns about constitutional implications, stating the Bill delegates excessive power to the Secretary of State without adequate parliamentary scrutiny. Raises concerns over proposed regulations that could amend primary legislation, including devolved Acts from Senedd and Scottish Parliament, undermining devolution settlements.

Nigel Evans

Orders a reduction in speaking time to allow more Members to contribute (not against or for the clause).

Caroline Johnson Con

Sleaford and North Hykeham

Supports the Bill, arguing it protects patient safety during strikes. Highlights financial implications of proposed pay rises for NHS staff, stating these would drive up inflation. Advocates for pre-agreed national minimum service levels to improve consistency and patient care planning. Argues that striking after agreeing to a minimum service level constitutes dereliction of duty.

Sarah Champion Lab

Rotherham

Critiques the Bill as undermining workers' right to strike and turning public opinion against them. Expresses concern over sweeping powers allowing Government to dictate minimum service levels without meaningful consultation. Questions claims that strikes are putting lives at risk, citing evidence of improved patient care during recent strikes. Advocates for direct negotiation with unions to resolve issues.

Nicholas Fletcher Con

North East Bedfordshire

Believes in the right to strike but argues that strikes do not work and are counterproductive. Cites examples from Doncaster where strikes led to closures and redundancies. Criticises unions for taking advantage of the country's situation, accuses opposition parties of supporting unions due to funding ties, and urges for voluntary arrangements instead of legislation.

Mhairi Black SNP

Paisley South

Claims existing laws on trade unions are already restrictive. Argues that the Bill undermines workers' rights and democracy, potentially violating European convention on human rights. Emphasises that strike action is a last resort for workers to get their demands heard and highlights government's responsibility in causing strikes due to austerity and poor working conditions.

Christine Jardine Lib Dem

Edinburgh West

Opposes the Bill as political posturing without offering real solutions. Argues that it does not address underlying issues in public services and will exacerbate the current crisis, urging for negotiation and reasonableness instead of legislation.

Cat Smith Lab

Lancaster and Wyre

Declares membership in a trade union. Argues that strikes are caused by poor service levels, not just union actions, and that legislation will make strikes more likely rather than resolving disputes. Describes the Bill as draconian, unnecessary, and counter-productive.

Mike Amesbury Lab

Warrington South

Expresses anger and disgust at the bill, highlighting strikes across various sectors due to cost of living crisis. Emphasises workers' right to organise and negotiate for a pay rise, describes the bill as an attack on democracy. Cites specific example of North West Ambulance Service workers striking as a last resort.

Neale Hanvey SNP

Dundee East

Calls out the government for blaming others instead of taking responsibility. Highlights key workers' contribution during the pandemic and their right to strike for decent pay and safety levels. Criticises international comparisons made by the Government as not accounting for UK's intolerable workload.

Kim Johnson Lab

Liverpool Riverside

Supports striking public sector workers, criticising the government’s refusal to negotiate and changing rules of engagement. Raises concerns about the Secretary of State's power to disrupt striking workers and target union organisers. Emphasises that minimum service agreements already exist in key services.

Tommy Sheppard SNP

Edinburgh East

Questions the necessity of the bill, arguing it is an attempt to revive the strategy of demonising working people. Highlights that no lives will be saved by this legislation and raises concerns about Scottish devolution being undermined.

Andy McDonald Lab

Middlesbrough and Thornaby East

The MP argues against the Bill as an ideological attack on workers, under-resourcing of public services, and in-work poverty. He emphasises that workers are forced to withdraw their labour due to insufficient wages and soaring bills. The speech also highlights the Government's attempt to deprive workers of basic civil liberties and human rights to organise for better conditions. McDonald pledges that Labour will repeal this Bill if they come to power.

Ian Lavery Lab

Blyth and Ashington

Lavery declares his lifelong membership in the trade union movement. He criticises the Government for demonizing trade unions and attacking ordinary working people during a time of economic hardship. The MP asserts that workers will never cross picket lines despite any legislation or regulations imposed by the Government.

Liz Saville-Roberts PC

Dwyfor Meirionnydd

The MP opposes the Bill as a threat to workers' rights, emphasising that strikes are a last resort for over-worked staff. She criticises the Government's lack of interest in working with key workers and questions whether this legislation complies with international agreements on social dialogue. Saville-Roberts also calls for the devolution of employment law to Wales to protect workers' rights.

Paula Barker Lab

Liverpool Wavertree

The MP declares her support for trade unions and criticises the Bill as an attack on workers’ rights. She argues that the legislation is incoherent, unworkable, and will make it easier to sack key workers such as paramedics and firefighters. Barker emphasises the role of trade unions in delivering labour rights and pledges to oppose this latest attack on communities.

Stephanie Peacock Lab

Barnsley South

Describes strikes as a last resort for low-paid workers who face wage cuts and worsening conditions. Rejects the notion that striking is an easy decision, citing personal experience as a teacher on strike. Emphasises that existing trade union laws are among the toughest in Europe but still allow for industrial action due to high levels of worker dissatisfaction.

David Linden

Critiques the sudden appearance of the Employment Bill as a reaction to recent strikes, rather than addressing workers' rights. Expresses concern over clause 3 granting significant powers to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Argues that current laws already make it difficult for workers to strike without substantial justification.

Nigel Evans

Acknowledges briefly but does not contribute substantively on the amendment or clause.

Zarah Sultana Lab

Coventry South

Declares support for trade unions and criticises the Government's shift from praising key workers during the pandemic to now attacking their right to strike. Argues that strikes are a response to falling wages and soaring living costs, not greed or selfishness.

Claudia Webbe

Describes the Bill as an attack on workers' rights rather than a measure for public service delivery. Criticises the lack of clarity in the Bill and its potential to override devolved legislatures. Warns that it undermines trade union organising and protections against dismissal, leading to fear among workers.

Sam Tarry Lab

Southport

Critiques the Government's stance on trade unions, highlighting their historical contributions to workplace rights and societal progress. He points out leaked emails indicating a potential ban on trade union membership and strike action. Cites statistics showing a rise in trade union membership and public support for strikes. Argues that the Bill will exacerbate industrial disputes rather than resolve them.

Nigel Evans Con

Cannock Chase

Calls on speakers to adhere to time limits so everyone can contribute within the remaining debate time.

Chris Stephens Lab

Glasgow South West

Claims that workers who protected communities during crises are now facing threats to their rights. Criticises the Government for restricting balloting and notification requirements, suggesting inconsistency with International Labour Organisation standards. Expresses concern over arbitration proposals, arguing they undermine co-operation between workers and employers. Warns of disproportionate actions against trade union activists.

Matt Western Lab

Warwick and Leamington

Honours a constituent who died during the pandemic, highlighting the dedication of frontline workers. Argues that public support is behind rewarding these workers with better pay and conditions after years of austerity. Criticises the Government's record on meeting minimum standards and service levels, suggesting the Bill is unnecessary and an attempt to erode workers' rights.

Gerald Jones Lab

Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare

Describes the current situation as a 'winter of discontent', with various sectors on strike. Supports trade unions and colleagues at TUC in their efforts to improve working conditions. Criticises the Bill as an attempt to divert attention from the Government's failures, highlighting its impracticality and lack of mention of public safety. Argues for collective bargaining and against restrictive measures that undermine workers' rights.

Mick Whitley Lab

He argues that the Government is attempting to deny workers their democratic right to engage in lawful and legitimate strike action. He warns that this Bill will only strengthen strikers' resolve, forcing unions to find more creative ways to make their voices heard. The labour movement is prepared to fight these proposals through legal means, as well as in workplaces across the country.

Rebecca Long-Bailey Lab

Salford

She quotes Winston Churchill’s support for workers’ rights and criticises the Government's plans to restrict these rights. She highlights that the Bill is almost certainly illegal, breaching multiple human rights agreements and conventions. She argues that instead of introducing this Bill, the Government should be listening to key workers' concerns and facilitating negotiations.

Richard Burgon Lab

Leeds East

He describes the Bill as part of an authoritarian attack on hard-won rights. He raises concerns about handing power to the Secretary of State and the potential for broad interpretation of service levels. He argues that proposed new section 234e changes the role of trade unions and attacks them as institutions.

Margaret Greenwood Lab

She stands in solidarity with striking workers and criticises the Government for pushing NHS staff to take strike action. She highlights legal challenges expected from the Bill, citing Richard Arthur’s statement on non-compliance with international conventions. She questions why Ministers have changed their stance and argues that this is an insult to workers who kept the country running during the pandemic.

Beth Winter Lab

Opposes the Bill for undermining workers' rights and unions, argues it entrusts greater powers to the Government without proper scrutiny. Highlights that the bill will allow employers to sack striking employees and sue trade unions if they do not force workers to cross picket lines.

John Martin McDonnell Lab

Hayes and Harlington

Claims the Bill is an attempt to weaken labour unions and shift power from workers to employers, noting it will lead to more strikes as working people cannot survive on current wages. Warns that opposition will come from trade unionists if the bill passes.

Rachael Maskell Lab Co-op

York Central

Argues the Bill impacts frontline workers negatively, sours industrial relations and does not resolve disputes. Emphasises that strikes are safer than regular working days in terms of service levels due to reduced workload on those days.

Geraint Davies Lab

Swansea West

Claims the Bill is a disgrace as it penalises workers who vote for strikes and refuses negotiations. Criticises the Government for turning their back on NHS workers and creating strikes to divert attention from economic issues.

Jonathan Reynolds Lab Co-op

Stalybridge and Hyde

The Bill is an unethical attempt to curtail workers' rights without addressing the root causes of industrial disputes. It undermines good faith negotiations between unions and employers, prolongs disputes by discouraging compromise, and fails to align with best practices in European countries which have stronger employment protections alongside such measures.

Kevin Hollinrake Con

Thirsk and Malton

Emphasised the need for legislation to protect public services during strikes, citing economic impacts such as £6 billion in total disruption and £2.5 billion lost income for the hospitality sector. Argued that settling disputes at 11% would cost taxpayers £28 billion annually.

Sarah Owen Lab

Luton North

Asked the Minister to address the damage caused by previous Governments and their impact on workers, suggesting that the Government's measures are not addressing these underlying issues.

Barry Gardiner Lab

Brent West

Requested assurances from the Minister regarding the designation of union officials to break strikes encouraged by their members, highlighting concerns about the potential misuse of powers granted under the Bill.

Gagan Mohindra Con

South West Hertfordshire

Supported the Minister's arguments and reaffirmed that public opinion is in favour of the Government’s position on this legislation.

Commons Sense

Trade Union Act [HL] - Clause 1

Lead MP

Debate Type

Tags

At a Glance

How the Debate Unfolded

Lead Contributor

Contributors (83)

About House of Commons Debates