Debates between Angela Rayner and Ellie Reeves during the 2019-2024 Parliament

Mon 30th Jan 2023
Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill
Commons Chamber

Committee stage: Committee of the whole House

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Debate between Angela Rayner and Ellie Reeves
Ellie Reeves Portrait Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Under this legislation, workers can be sacked for taking strike action that has been agreed in a democratic ballot, which is a gross infringement of working rights and goes against the long-established principles set out in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It also goes against the pledge in the 2019 Queen’s Speech, which said that sanctions would not be directed at individual workers. In the light of that, does my right hon. Friend agree that we simply have not been given enough time to debate a Bill that goes against everything that we stand for?

Angela Rayner Portrait Angela Rayner
- Hansard - -

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that Labour stands against this sacking nurses Bill—the Minister chuntered earlier about that not being the case; if he would like to prove that, then the Government could accept our amendment that would resolve the unfair dismissal situation.

We oppose the Bill in the strongest terms on principle and by virtue of the serious flaws that render it utterly unworkable.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Debate between Angela Rayner and Ellie Reeves
2nd reading
Monday 16th January 2023

(1 year, 10 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 View all Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Angela Rayner Portrait Angela Rayner
- Hansard - -

I absolutely agree with my friend. We may not be in the same party, but we are in the same trade union.

These brave, hard-working men and women struck local life-and-limb deals on a trust-by-trust basis ahead of all the strikes. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State says it is trust by trust, but it is the best way to ensure that the right care is provided, and those employers know that. When I was a home help, we always put patient care first. We negotiated to ensure minimum safety levels, which is more than I can say for the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, under whose watch we have seen excess deaths and an increasing crisis in the NHS.

Ellie Reeves Portrait Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I, too, declare an interest. As a proud trade unionist and trade union lawyer for many years before entering Parliament, I represented striking workers day in, day out. I know that no worker takes the decision to strike lightly. These strikes have been caused by the cost of living crisis caused by this Conservative Government. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this Bill is just a further attack on workers’ rights, like the anti-trade union legislation passed by this Government in 2016? It is just another attack on working people who keep us safe, day in and day out.

Angela Rayner Portrait Angela Rayner
- Hansard - -

I absolutely agree. People watching this debate can see from the Secretary of State’s opening remarks, and from his previous remarks, what this is: a smokescreen about allegedly needing minimum service levels. We know that because, last autumn, his own Government assessed that minimum service levels were not needed for the emergency services due to existing regulations and voluntary arrangements. We all want minimum standards of safety, service and staffing levels, and we want them every day, but it is the Minister who is failing to provide them. Instead of holding them to account, they Government are seeking through this Bill to grab sweeping new powers to impose burdens on employers and to remove basic rights from workers across our public service. This is an attack on every nurse, health worker and firefighter in the country. They have gone from clapping nurses to sacking them.