Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 9th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of London]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 18 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Kakkar, and add my voice to many of the points already raised. I thank the Minister for being much more specific around health. I hope that we can define it much more clearly, rather than having that very broad category, as well as the issue around life and limb.

I remind the Government that, in this Chamber, they have resisted introducing legislation for minimum staffing levels on a number of occasions. It seems incredible that they now want to put in levels of minimum service, which clearly require minimum staffing levels, but are willing to do it only on strike days.

As I indicated earlier, this amendment goes to the heart of one of the key issues with the Bill; namely, that people in the health service who strike do so partly because safe staffing levels are not in place on non-strike days. We have already heard that the healthcare system is under huge pressure, trying to provide quality care with fewer staff, and there are workforce problems. The most recent statistic I have shows that there are 124,000 vacancies across the NHS—that is 13,000 more than this time last year. The Royal College of Nursing published a survey in May 2022 showing that only 25% of shifts have the planned number of registered nurses and 83% of respondents said that there were not enough nursing staff to meet all patient needs safely and effectively on their most recent shift.

Staff on non-strike days are thinly stretched and cannot provide the level of care that they would want to, which puts huge pressure on their health and well-being. The distress that they experience is causing an increase in illness to them. Reporting on the past year, the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch noted that the additional pressure that staff were under was causing sickness. As a new student nurse put it, “I no longer want the career as it is. The reality feels as though I must sacrifice my own health and well-being for less than satisfactory pay.”

The notion that the Government could legislate to require minimum service levels in healthcare settings, which are already committed to safe strikes, while there is a lack of investment and workforce planning—which is the reason for the action—is unfathomable. I would welcome the Government legislating to ensure appropriate staffing levels on non-strike days that are greater than the strike day cover. That would be welcomed by nurses, because it would mean more resources and more workforce planning than the health service has seen for years. It would also resolve one of the reasons why nurses are taking strike action. I have spoken about trust, as have a number of noble Lords. Accepting this amendment would go some way towards to rebuilding the trust that has been eroded, and will be eroded further by this Bill.

Amendment 13 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, seeks to make a similar point but through a different route. Along with my right reverend friend the Bishop of Manchester, who is unable to be here, I express my support for that amendment as well.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I support both the amendments. I have sat in my office all afternoon listening to this debate. At times, it was difficult to concentrate, simply because there was a degree of repetition. I do not blame noble Lords for that; I blame the Government—as usual. At least I got lots of old paperwork sorted, which was real progress for me.

Despite trade unions sounding the alarm on unsafe levels of staffing in public services such as hospitals for quite some time, the Government refuse to implement legislation ensuring safe levels of staffing on any day other than a day when workers have chosen to withhold their labour by going on strike.

These amendments lay bare the ridiculousness of the Bill. Under this legislation, the Government will force workers to go to work against their will, with the perverse outcome being that strike days could see services with a higher number of staff than on non-strike days. It sounds like slavery to me. Is it not slavery when you force people to work against their will?

The Government propose that this is done by employers writing out a list of names of workers who must turn up and work on a strike day. Unlike on a normal work rota, workers will not be allowed to call in sick, take parental leave, take bereavement leave or even be in hospital having had a major condition of some sort. This legislation drags the workers in and forces them into a temporary state of servitude. That goes against every single principle of common law, contract law and employment rights in this country.

I have a cunning plan which would save the Government on this issue; it would just need a few tweaks in the Bill. If the Government want to make it illegal to go below minimum staffing levels in hospitals and the ambulance service, why do we not do that 24/7 and 365 days a year but, instead of the unions getting fined, we fine the CEOs and Government Ministers? That way, if you want someone to be responsible for old people waiting eight hours for an ambulance, you put the legal responsibility on the people at the top, not at the bottom. This seems eminently sensible and much more practical. Let us have laws that apply to the people in charge rather than target the overstretched staff on the front line, who are struggling for better pay and conditions. The Government will not be able to deliver either my idea or the Bill as it stands. In fact, this Government is too incompetent to deliver a pizza, so why should they be able to deliver a Bill such as this one?

If the next Government have any sort of involvement with the Green Party, they should know that we have committed to repealing this legislation and all other anti-trade union legislation passed since the Thatcher Government—that will be quite an exercise. We can create safe, well-run public services by working together with workers and unions, not by using authoritarian laws to strong-arm them into the workplace no matter how badly their working conditions get. I hope that the Government see sense on this, but I can tell from the looks of noble Lords on the Front Bench that it is not going to work.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, it is quite difficult to follow that speech. I do not think that anybody would want to encourage the dissipation of the Green Party in any Government, so the noble Baroness’s ideas will not go very far.

I will not talk about the NHS, which all noble Lords have spoken about so far; I will address only Amendment 13 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, but not in the context of the NHS, to which he addressed all his remarks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I readily concede to the noble Baroness that many public services are under pressure, despite the record sums that we are spending on them. Of course, there are pressures on many public services; I entirely accept that. I do not know the details of the fire and rescue services consultation, but I know that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, is very happy to continue to engage on that issue.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I am so sick of that line about the record amounts being spent on our public services when a lot of that money goes to private companies, which employ nurses and doctors because the Government have allowed our public services to be so understaffed. Please stop misrepresenting the situation.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The noble Baroness is getting off the debate. I am very happy to debate these points with her another time, but I think I will stick to the amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

I am following you.

[Lord Callanan]

It is the fact that we are spending record amounts on these services.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords—

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I appreciate that the noble Baroness has a different opinion on how the money is spent, and with whom. That is an unarguable fact. Perhaps we can save the debate for another occasion when we are not talking about this legislation.

Minimising what the minimum service level could be sets a significant legal restriction on the ability to achieve this balance and would likely result in the public continuing to suffer the disproportionate impacts that strikes can have. Let me again thank my noble friend Baroness Noakes for her contribution; she eloquently highlighted the potential perverse consequence of Amendment 13, and I totally agree with my noble friend.

The Government value employers, employees, trade unions and their members, and members of the public, who pay for many of these services, being able to participate in the process of setting minimum service levels through the consultations that are required by the legislation. This amendment would reduce the importance of that process, and in turn reduce the influence that these important groups have.

The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has left us, but it remains the case that any regulations that set minimum service levels in specified services will need to be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, including Article 11. Should any regulations go beyond what is necessary to achieve the aims of setting minimum service levels, which resulted in a breach of the ECHR, a court would be able to grant such remedy as it considers just and appropriate, following a judicial review. Levels of staffing on non-strike days will no doubt be one of the factors that they may wish to consider. I hope that this reassures noble Lords that we will act in a way that is proportionate, and so that there are appropriate routes for stakeholders to challenge any MSLs that they believe have been set at too high a level.

Amendment 18 deals specifically with health services. It seeks to delay any implementation of minimum service levels in health services on strike days by first requiring the Government to establish appropriate staffing levels on non-strike days through primary legislation. As always, it was a pleasure for me and the noble Lord, Lord Markham, to meet yesterday with the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Kakkar, to discuss the amendment. I am grateful that both noble Lords took the time to explain their concerns. I bow to their superior knowledge of and service to the healthcare system, and for their contribution to the debate which, as ever, was constructive. Many of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, were discussed in the earlier grouping; I know that the noble Lord was listening so I will not repeat all the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Markham, but I am very happy to have further discussions with both noble Lords if they think there are outstanding issues that we have not sufficiently covered.

I would say that the responsibility for issuing work notices is with the employer, rather than the Secretary of State, precisely because individual employers know better what level of staffing is required to achieve minimum service levels. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, will be irritated but I also repeat and emphasise the point that there is no statutory duty in the Bill on an employer to issue a work notice.

As we discussed, however, strike action in some areas of health services can put lives at risk or cause serious harm to patients. In many cases, it has the potential for far-reaching consequences for members of the public who are not directly involved in the dispute. As the consultation for applying minimum service levels in the ambulance services sets out, the aim is to protect life and health, and it is only right that the implementation of minimum service levels, where required, is not unnecessarily delayed.

I will pick up the point on non-strike days. Responsibility for staffing levels, in the Government’s view, should remain with clinical and other leaders at a local level, responding to local needs and supported by guidelines and national and professional bodies and overseen and regulated in England by the Care Quality Commission. People have been unable to access work, healthcare and education and been left worrying whether an ambulance would even be there when they needed one. Businesses have also been severely impacted. It is the Government’s view that these amendments would only delay or disrupt our ability to act on the disproportionate impacts that strikes can have on the public. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will be able to withdraw Amendment 13.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 6th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, your Lordships may have noticed that there is a rather cruder amendment in my name towards the end of this group: Amendment 99A. I am not a lawyer, but much of my life in politics and trade unionism and as a consumer champion has been defined by decisions of the British courts—some of the most important of which have been influenced by European law or by the judgments of the European courts. The advances we have made on equalities, employment rights, a number of consumer items and the environment, and indeed on issues such as intellectual property and digital protection and so forth, have been in large part—not entirely; I will not overstate the case—affected by European law, now called retained EU law, or the European courts’ own judgments which have been followed by the British courts.

In the exchange between the noble Lord, Lord Callanan—he is not here at the moment; I welcome the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy—and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said that the courts will go on interpreting cases as they have done from time immemorial. However, from time immemorial, the courts have interpreted the law on the basis of what is on the statute book at that time. They continue to do so until that law is changed by this Parliament. The implications of parts of Clause 7 are that that will no longer be the case; that the courts will need to have less regard to the types of cases that arose because they were influenced, at least in part, by European law; and that European decisions will not need to be held in the same regard in future. That is the purpose of Clause 7, which is why my amendment would delete it.

I largely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, that it could be rewritten—we do need some guidance on case law—but this is taking it in entirely the wrong direction and destabilising what has, from time immemorial, been the basic role of the British courts in interpreting legislation. If the Government and Parliament change the law, that changes it; some of those cases no longer have the same effect as they do at the moment. However, if we take Clause 7 as it stands, we are undermining a number of improvements in the conditions of our people and, at the same time, undermining the credibility, consistency and historical role of our courts. I therefore suggest to the Government that they should remove this clause. If the Bill proceeds—noble Lords know that I am not in favour of it—the Government could come back with a rather more sensible Clause 7. However, as it presently stands, it is one that we ought to oppose root and branch.

The role of our legal system is being undermined by a political doctrine that has yet to find its way into the legislation and the statutory law of our land. That is a dangerous road that we should not go down; I therefore suggest that we remove Clause 7 and think again.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I have no legal training, so I going to rely on noble and learned Lords to tell me whether I have understood this whole section properly. It seems a bit odd.

In contrast to the first clauses of this Bill, which have been designed by the Government to take power away from Parliament—all the decision-making process and scrutiny—Clause 7 seems designed to outsource the task of making sense of the huge legal mess in the Bill. It is wrong on many levels but, in particular, it calls on judges to make political decisions that Parliament ought to take instead. The Bill is potentially going to create a huge legal mess; it does not seem fair for the Government to outsource this issue. That is worrying enough on its own, but it is all the more worrying because of the way in which this Government have demonised lawyers and judges over the past two or three years. They have been scapegoated at every twist and turn of the Brexit process. It has been a nightmare to see people who clearly have our best interests at heart being demonised in this way.

Clause 7 seems to have a very specific purpose. Forgive me if my language is oversimplified but, quite honestly, the Government are making a huge legal mess and are going to ask other people—judges, lawyers and the courts—to sort it out for them so that those people will take the blame when it all falls apart. Can the Minister explain whether I have understood it properly?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, I have been looking forward to this group of amendments because I thought that this might be the moment when we got to the nuts and bolts of how this is all going to work. It is a real pleasure to see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, in his place for this group. We welcome him and hope that he can provide some clarity on the Government’s intentions here. I have tabled a couple of amendments but all the amendments in this group attempt a similar thing, which is to neuter Clause 7 to some extent and, should Clause 7 persist, to balance out some of the instruction to courts.

There are some very helpful amendments, particularly those tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, which have been referred to by others. What troubles me most about this is that we are endangering the legal certainty, clarity and predictability that are so important. The problem is that retained law will now be reinterpreted. Law can now be given a fresh interpretation so that laws which are still in force as of 31 December 2023 might mean something different from what they meant when they were passed and from how courts have interpreted them if they have been considered by the courts previously. They will mean something else after the end of this year.

From the citizen’s point of view, a major requirement of law is that they know what the law means. If we pass this Bill, that requirement no longer applies to this section of law—in respect of huge swathes of important regulations, from environment and employment to product safety and consumer protections. I will not go into all the examples that we have been talking about on previous days, but the Minister will know what I am trying to get across to him. We just do not know what the effect of this will be. It is impossible to tell from the Bill as it is drafted. The Government cannot possibly know either. They cannot know today, when they are asking us to consider this legislation, the effect that applying different canons of construction will have on thousands of pages of regulation. No Government could think that the best way to remove EU law is to replace it with law the meaning of which is yet unknown. That was my understanding of this, and I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton, who took time yesterday to talk to me about this, to ensure that I was getting this right. This is the situation as he sees it as well. It is quite extraordinary.

I note the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, on the coherence of civil law, which no one else has referred to. I had not considered this before listening to her speech. She made an important point there. Her points about Clause 7 in relation to the operation in Scotland are also important and it would be very useful if the Minister could respond to those specifically.

We have had some great experience brought to this group, not least by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. It would be wise of the Minister to respect that contribution, which I am sure he will. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, asked: who will judge what is proper? This gets to the heart of this clause and why we are concerned about it. Who will decide, and by what criteria? Clause 7(4) says:

“A higher court may depart from its own retained domestic case law if it considers it right to do so having regard to”,


before going on to list other things.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 2nd March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 32 in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Judge, and Amendments 42, 43, 44 and 141A.

I will make two very short points because so many of the points have been made more eloquently by previous speakers. First, the amendments we are discussing are not substitutes for removing the cut-off at the end of 2023. They are complementary to it for two reasons. The processes quite rightly being proposed could not all be got through in the time available before the end of this year; you also solve the cart and horses problem by removing the 2023 date. I hope we will not forget that when we come back to all this on Report, and we will see these two things as complementary.

Secondly, the arguments about the EU-based legislation that is completely immaterial to us—on reindeers, lemon exports and so on—are completely irrelevant. If you go back through the last 500 years of statutes past, the statute book is full of things that are completely irrelevant to the way we live now, and which are not enforced or implemented in any way. We do not seem to lose any sleep over it. Let us not lose any sleep over the reindeers or they will not bring the Christmas stocking with them.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I have not signed any amendments in this group—I was not asked, and I was not quick enough to get my name down. All of the issues have been covered absolutely amazingly by other noble Lords, so I will restrict myself to talking about the politics. The politics of this particular Bill are extremely interesting. I support all the amendments in the first group, simply because they are sensible and practical, and I like practical outcomes. But, at the same time, we ought to throw the whole clause out, and I do not see any option to do that. We want a democracy when we have finished voting on the Bill and, if it goes through as it is, we will not have one.

I will ask two political questions. First, why do we have the Bill at all? Quite honestly, it is terrible piece of legislation that is absolutely outrageous. In the 10 years I have been here, I have almost never had a glimmer of sympathy for the Government. But, having seen the Bill, I do: it is like the last gasp of a dying creature, and that dying creature is the popular Tory party of 2019, when it actually had some credibility and popularity, as I said. That has seeped and ebbed away, to the point that it is now in the most extraordinary position and putting forward legislation like this. It is an ideological monstrosity that caters to the worst parts of the right wing of the Tory party, and it will not have support.

I think the Conservative Party expects to run out into the streets and say, “We did it—we got rid of all EU law. Brexit has finally happened”. But, of course, that is simply not true: a lot of this is not EU law but British law. I am sure that the Minister himself had a hand in producing some of it, as a Member of the European Parliament. For anyone who has been in the European Parliament to say that this is pure EU law is complete nonsense. I do not want to accuse the Minister of telling lies, but it is nonsense. So why is it here? Is it here because the Conservative Party wants to get some sort of popularity or something? Why is it here? It is not a worthwhile Bill; it is a ludicrous Bill to bring here. There has been so much learned opposition, but still the Government insist on pushing it through.

My second political question is: what happens afterwards? Of course, it is all very well to put this through, but what happens when Labour is in government? Will the Conservative Party really be happy that Labour has these powers and can just whip out a piece of legislation and give Ministers all these powers? It is not a democracy when you give so much power to Ministers. That is not what Brexit was about—and I say that as somebody who voted for Brexit. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that he is perhaps a rejoiner now, not a remoaner—sorry, I mean remainer. It is perhaps time we understood that the damage has been done and this just creates more damage. It is time to drop the Bill. We will not have a democracy if it goes through.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I am pleased that everybody who has spoken in this debate is pulling in the same direction, which is an effort to rescue the Government from themselves. It is not only former diplomats and civil servants, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, who applaud the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom; I am afraid to say to the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, that it is also Liberal Democrats as well, which might be even more upsetting to him. But we are all, at least partially, on the same page as the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, and I do hope that we will be able to rally round a single powerful amendment for Report, based on elements of all of the laudable amendments in this group.

What has been brought out in the debate are the contradictions and hypocrisy of criticising the EU legislative process—which I happen to believe was democratic, but I will leave that there. But, even if you do not, introducing rule by executive diktat does not seem a very intelligent response to your criticism of EU lawmaking.

I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, who cited the report of the Constitution Committee; I think we are all grateful not only to that committee but to the Delegated Powers and secondary legislation committees—we have with us the former chair of the SLSC, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, who supervised the work for that committee’s report on this Bill before he stepped down. The DPRRC not only described the Bill, as we have frequently said, as “hyper-skeletal” but noted that approach taken by the Government

“contradicts pledges by the Government since 2018 that Parliament would be the agent of substantive policy change in these areas”.

Instead, they have made the Bill

“a blank cheque placed in the hands of Ministers”.

That is our objection. The Government would be wise to go back and think about what they are doing in this Bill. We are trying to put some order and reasonableness into the way it is being done. We are having to do a lot of the work that should have been done before the Bill was introduced. All the amendments, whether the one led by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and supported by my noble friend Lord Beith, or those led by my noble friend Lord Fox, the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, in one way or another seek to avoid the deletion of unidentified law unintentionally and to allow Parliament rather than Ministers control in a considered, explained, transparent and accountable way. Seriously, what is not to like about those two objectives?

We heard some nice phrases in the debate. It was said that we wanted to avoid the “unannounced repeal” of legislation, which was translated perhaps in a rather more blunt, northern way, if I may say so to my noble friend Lord Beith, as “washing stuff down the plughole”. We heard about a “circular economy” of the law from the noble Lord, Lord Deben. I might recycle that—oh, dear—at some point. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, described the processes in the Bill as “bizarre” and “constitutionally improper”. Several amendments, including Amendment 42, led by my noble friend Lord Fox, seek to avoid the default loss of laws that our citizens will not even know they have lost—various speakers, including the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, mentioned the effect of that.

So we are trying to establish default retention and to build in specification of objectives for any revocation. A lot of the amendments are sister amendments to those debated on Tuesday in an earlier group—we had Amendment 48 on consultation and reporting. All of them aim to introduce a reasonable, considered, parliamentary way of doing things which will not surprise all the businesses, unions, consumers, employees and so on, who will not know what on earth is going on.

I realise that Amendment 50, which proposes a super-affirmative process for revocation, may offend the reservations of the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, and my noble friend Lord Beith about amendable SIs, but I am sure that, with the skill of both those very experienced parliamentarians, we will be able to think of a better way of drafting everything. But I think that all the aims that we have debated in this group are worth pursuing.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for making that point, but mea culpas go both ways. Some of us were saying four years ago that some of those technical solutions could have been tried then, and we were accused of magical thinking. In fact, we were actually right. So just to wind up—because I know the Minister, for whom I have an enormous amount of respect, is staring at me—I think the Bill should go through. It would be offensive to democracy for it not to go through, and I look forward to a position where it gets Royal Assent eventually.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, this is offensive for democracy if it does go through.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Very briefly, the reason we are welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, is not because we have grown fed up with the noble Lord, Lord Callanan; it is because he is the major shareholder in this Bill as regards the number of amendments. I hope that, as well as dealing with the 24 particular laws that are in this group, he will use his response to explain the process that his department is going to undergo in order to deal with the other 1,757 laws that are not included in this group. I think it will be very important if he is able to do that.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 21st February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I recently asked on Twitter: “What do you call a corrupt, far-right Government that bans strikes, bans protests that are too noisy, suppresses the right to vote, gives police spies legal immunity, takes the power to make or reject laws away from Parliament and hands it to Ministers?” I had quite a few replies, most said “fascism”, which was fair enough, but there was one response that said “scared”. This is a Government of the rich who are making suitcases full of money while avoiding paying their taxes and I think they are scared. No one but a terrified Government would keep bringing these terrible laws to your Lordships’ House.

The Government are scared that the people on PAYE suffering from inflation, high interest rates and 13 years of Tory austerity are going to demand their money back—the money that was stolen with the PPE fast track and numerous other government scams that have put money in the pockets of their friends while fleecing the taxpayer.

Many of those on strike in the last few months have not had a proper pay rise for the last decade. Instead of earning respect for years of being underpaid for the work they do and carry on doing, they are lectured on the need for further restraint by the richest Prime Minister in this country’s history. Clapping does not pay the bills. We heard that after Covid and it is still true.

Instead of meetings and compromise, the workers are being hit with draconian laws. Ministers are being given huge powers that could see them ban strikes across six public services, potentially involving millions of workers. These are not minimal powers or targeted powers; they are the powers of a dictatorship, which can be interpreted by Ministers as widely as they choose.

There is no recognition, as we have heard, of the “life and limb” provisions that are already in place during strike action, which exempt certain categories of staff from strikes where there may otherwise be a direct danger to people. The Government do not recognise existing agreements because they, once again, wish to invent a problem that does not exist, in order to justify a right-wing policy that suppresses opposition. They have done it with voter ID and the clampdown on the right to protest. Of course, the Johnson Government ended a ban on employment agencies supplying workers to temporarily replace striking workers. That ban had been in force since 1976, but the Tories overturned it.

What happens when teachers and nurses do not get paid enough? We get the situation we have today. People give up on public service and move to the private sector instead. The number of children packed into school classrooms goes up and the results go down. The number of NHS staff vacancies gets longer and so do the waiting times. Those who can pay, go private. Money will buy smaller class sizes in private schools, just as money will buy a shortcut to healthcare. That is ultimately why many in this Government do not want to give a pay rise that matches inflation. Austerity is a political choice. If we taxed the rich, we could pay the deserving. The truth is that many in this Government want public services in a permanent state of collapse because it matches their privatisation agenda. These anti-strike laws are an attempt to stop public servants from protecting our public services.

I will be brief, because a lot of people have said a lot of incredibly valuable things—mostly on this side of the Chamber, obviously. I have two final things to say. First, this thing about minimum service levels—the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, asked about this—what does it mean? I wonder what it means, because this Government have not managed to hit a target ever since they were elected, so I cannot think how they are going to manage minimum service levels. Secondly, on the Minister’s opening—a fine opening, Minister—the public expect essential services to be there when they need them. Why do the Government not get round the table and negotiate? Why are they behaving like complete and utter oafs? I really hope that we can throw out this Bill and I am thrilled that Labour will repeal it as soon as it gets into power—that will not be too long now.