Government accuses peers of seeking to delay controversial strike reforms
The government has accused peers of trying to delay controversial strike reforms that unions fear will make it easier to sack workers.
The House of Lords had made a series of amendments to the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill aimed at protecting workers and trade unions, plus requiring the government to consult further on the changes.
But on Wednesday, the House of Commons overturned the amendments after pleas from the government frontbench to allow the bill to become law.
It would allow ministers to impose minimum levels of service during industrial action by ambulance staff, firefighters, railway workers and those in other sectors deemed essential.
The Trades Union Congress (TUC) called for an “urgent rethink” and warned the bill, if not amended, will mean workers who lawfully vote to strike could be forced to work or be sacked if they do not comply.
Peers have been trying to amend the bill to ensure workers cannot be sacked if they fail to comply with a work notice on strike days.
But MPs rejected the Lords amendment aimed at ensuring this protection 277 to 209, majority 68.
Peers’ attempts to ensure the government consult further on the bill and conduct an impact assessment were rejected by MPs 283 to 205, majority 78.
A series of amendments from the Lords aimed at ensuring unions are not tasked with ensuring their members obey work notices were also overturned. MPs rejected them 280 to 214, majority 66.
Business minister Kevin Hollinrake said the amendments from peers were not a “meaningful attempt” to reach agreement, adding: “I fear we are having a somewhat repetitive debate which is delaying us from getting on with important business of minimising disruption to the public during periods of strike action.”
DUP MP Jim Shannon (Strangford) earlier said: “Does the minister not agree that decent, ordinary people only vote for strikes when they feel voiceless and also invisible to management, and that government and big business can prevent strikes by listening and acting before the stage of strikes, however, the right to strike must always be a last-ditch possibility and they reserve that right?”
Hollinrake replied: “We agree on all those points made, of course they should be a last resort and of course workers should be able to take industrial action when they feel their voices aren’t being heard so I entirely agree with that. I don’t think there’s anything in this legislation that cuts across that.”
Shadow business minister Justin Madders said the Lords were attempting to make the bill “slightly less draconian”, adding Labour opposes the legislation as a whole.
He said: “This Bill is the act of a weak government that has lost the authority and the will to govern for everyone… how ministers have the gall to come to this despatch box and talk about the importance of minimum service levels when we have seen under this government the decimation of public services is beyond me.”
The SNP’s Alan Brown described it as a “God-awful bill”, adding: “The government is bringing in legislation making it easier to sack workers at a time when we don’t even have enough workers to fill vacancies.”
Labour MP John McDonnell claimed that ambitions to grow the economy could be “undermined” by industrial disputes fuelled by the bill, as he urged ministers to accept amendments to it.
The Hayes and Harlington MP said: “If it (the government) sees to go ahead like this, I can see nothing but further conflict happening and actually it will undermine the whole commitment I think that we have across the House to try and see if we can develop a growth economy rather than one that is held back as a result of some of the disputes that have been engineered in the recent times because of a cost-of-living crisis.”
The proposals are currently in the stage of the parliamentary process known as ping-pong, in which the unelected Lords and the Commons send the Bill back and forth until they can agree the final wording.
By Richard Wheeler and David Lynch, PA