Draft Important Public Services (Health) Regulations 2017 Draft Important Public Services (Border Security) Regulations 2017 Draft Important Public Services (Fire) Regulations 2017

Debate between Adam Afriyie and Chris Stephens
Wednesday 1st February 2017

(7 years, 9 months ago)

General Committees
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Adam Afriyie Portrait Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
- Hansard - -

I will just say a few words. I welcome the regulations, which are made under the Trade Union Act 2016, which passed through the House with a majority. We are talking about the right of people to live—to survive and live their daily lives—versus the right of a small group in a union to withdraw their labour. We all respect and value the trade union movement, as I have often said. However, there must be circumstances pertaining to important and essential public services when rights must be expressed with a clear voice, as opposed to what happens in instances such as the teachers’ strike in 2014, when just 22% voted to strike. There have been many occasions like that.

We must take heed of the sector we are talking about, and the impact on people’s right to enjoy their lives.

Chris Stephens Portrait Chris Stephens
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The hon. Gentleman mentions the teachers’ dispute, and claims that 22% voted in a particular way. Surely the education trade union involved must have made an assessment of whether enough people would take part in industrial action. Did 22% of teachers go out on strike, or more than that?

Adam Afriyie Portrait Adam Afriyie
- Hansard - -

I do not know the figures for how many came out on strike, but I know that 22% expressed the desire to strike, which means that the overwhelming majority did not. The question at that point is whether it is right that one in four or one in five people can force a strike on others while disrupting people’s education and the entire education system for a time.

--- Later in debate ---
Chris Stephens Portrait Chris Stephens
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I do not accept that distinction, because it is not quite compulsory—we are not in Australia, where everyone has to register and everyone has to vote. I do not accept the distinction, because an industrial action ballot with a 49% turnout could have wider support than one where turnout is over 50%, but the result is just a narrow win. It makes no sense in those circumstances to apply a threshold.

The difficulty we have on the Opposition Benches is that we are seeking assurances from the Government on workers’ rights as we exit the EU. These regulations do not fill those of us in the Opposition with confidence that workers’ rights will be safeguarded as we exit the European Union. There are a number of other difficulties, one of which relates to the question I asked the Minister.

Adam Afriyie Portrait Adam Afriyie
- Hansard - -

I am not sure I follow the hon. Gentleman’s point. Is he saying that the Trade Union Act 2016 was against European legislation? That is what he seems to be implying.

Chris Stephens Portrait Chris Stephens
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

No, the point is the trend of the Government, who say one thing and do completely another thing. I remember writing an article in the Morning Star, with which the hon. Gentleman may be familiar, in which I described being in this place and the arguments being presented by the Government as “bizarre”, “surreal” and “Orwellian”, and I think we have seen evidence of that today. This is a general problem, because the Government are suggesting that they wish to protect workers’ rights, but what we see with the Trade Union Act 2016 and now these regulations is an entirely different matter.