The UK government’s anti-strike legislation has cleared its first hurdle in Parliament, as the country suffers from continuing disruptions amid a wave of industrial action in the public sector.
On Monday evening, MPs voted 309 to 249 to give the bill a second reading.
It came just hours after the National Education Union (NEU) announced plans to hold seven days of walkouts in February and March in a dispute over teachers’ pay.
Meanwhile, members of the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) in England are due to walk out again on Wednesday and Thursday, and have announced two more strikes in England and Wales on Feb. 6 and 7.
Train drivers are also set to strike on Feb. 1 and 3 after the Aslef union rejected a pay offer from rail companies.
The government announced the legislation on Jan. 5, saying it will ensure “minimum safety levels” in the most crucial sectors when industrial action takes place.
The government said it will “always protect the ability to strike,” but it also has a duty to the public to “ensure their safety, protect their access to vital public services, and help them go about their daily lives.”
Trade unions will be bound to follow this legislation and will risk the employer bringing an injunction to prevent the strike from taking place or seeking damages afterwards if they do not comply with their obligations.
The legislation has provoked an angry response from the unions. The Trades Union Congress (TUC) described it as “undemocratic, unworkable, and almost certainly illegal.”
The main opposition Labour Party said it opposes the bill and will repeal the law if it comes into power after the next general election.
Public ‘Has Had Enough’
Ahead of the vote in the House of Commons, Business Secretary Grant Shapps told MPs the public “has had enough of the constant, most unwelcome, frankly dangerous, disruption to their lives.”He said: “There comes a time when we can’t let this continue and that is why we need minimum safety and service levels—to keep livelihoods and lives safe, and it’s frankly irresponsible, even surprising, for the opposition opposite to suggest otherwise.”
But former Home Secretary Priti Patel, a Conservative, said the legislation does not go far enough and ministers should widen the list of sectors which should be legally required to have minimum service levels during strikes.
‘Indefensible and Foolish’
Labour deputy leader Angela Rayner criticised the bill as “one of the most indefensible and foolish pieces of legislation to come before this House in modern times.”She added: “It threatens teachers and nurses with the sack during a recruitment and retention crisis. It mounts an outright assault on the fundamental freedom of working people while doing nothing … to actually resolve the crisis at hand.”
But a prominent union leader suggested that Labour should do more to back workers’ rights.
Mick Lynch, general secretary of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT), said Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer should avoid trying to be a “vanilla politician.”
Speaking outside Downing Street at the protest against the bill, Lynch pointed out that the Labour front bench was “missing” from the protests.
International Precedents
Under the new legislation, minimum safety levels will be set for fire, ambulance, and rail services and the government will consult on the “adequate level of coverage” for these sectors.For the other sectors covered in the bill, which include health services, education, nuclear decommissioning, other transport services, and border security, the government said it will aim to reach voluntary agreements, and would only look to consult on minimum safety levels should these voluntary positions not be agreed.
The government said the proposed measures will see the UK align with many countries across the world such as France and Spain that already have minimum service agreements in place.
Talking to broadcasters following the announcement last week, Shapps rejected the suggestion that the planned new law would impact on the human rights of trade union members.
He said, “First of all, civilised European nations, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, they all have some form of minimum safety levels.”
He added that the International Labour Organisation also has said that there is “nothing wrong” with such a scheme “when it’s a question of life and death.”
“The idea that there may not be an ambulance coming because there’s a strike on, I think, is unacceptable.
“We’re not proposing to go the full hog. Other countries, parts of America, Canada, Australia, they have legislation which bans those blue lights entirely from going on strike.
“We’re not proposing that. I think it’s very reasonable what we’re suggesting but I think the time has come and it brings us into line with other European nations.”
