Draft Code of Practice on Reasonable Steps to be taken by a Trade Union (Minimum Service Levels)

Debate between Chris Stephens and Rachael Maskell

Monday 27th November 2023 General Committees

[Chris Stephens]

That may very well be the case. The hon. Member makes an eloquent point.

[Rachael Maskell]

Every single day this Government are in office, they are unable to maintain minimum service levels across a vast array of our public services, so why does the hon. Gentleman think they are requiring more workers to attend work on strike days than the rest of the year?

[Chris Stephens]

That is a magnificent point. This has been debated on various occasions on which we have asked the Government—perhaps the Minister will rise to his feet; I will take his intervention right now—why minimum service levels are necessary on industrial action days, but not at any other time. If there were statutory guidance and a code of practice for employers, one would certainly ask the question: would employers demand that there be more workers on shift on days of industrial action than on a normal working day? The Minister knows this, because it has been raised consistently when we discuss these things that employers are always at it.

I was a proud trade union activist. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a proud member of the Glasgow city branch of Unison. We had to negotiate life-and-limb cover for strike days—yes, the legislation sets out that there has to be life-and-limb cover—and employers would ask for more people on shift on days of industrial action than on normal working days. I will take an intervention right now if the Minister can give us an assurance that no employer across these islands will ask more workers to be at work on days of industrial action than on normal working days. I am more than happy to take an intervention from the Minister right now.

I note for the record that the Minister has not risen to his feet.

Since the passage of the anti-strike Act, there have been suggestions that the Act’s provisions on minimum service levels would be similar to the norms of Europe. Well, no, they are not. I will not repeat all the clarifications that I and others have offered on what actually happens in Europe, as those fell on deaf ears. I will, however, repeat our warnings that this nasty legislation will prove to be severely counterproductive and damaging overall to society. Taking a negotiated, voluntary and successful approach to minimal service levels and mutating it into an imposed, coercive and ultimately failed system is very foolish, but it is unsurprising from those who choose not to listen or learn.

Let me comment in detail on one sector in particular: the health sector. I will do so by referring extensively to the TUC’s consultation response on minimum service levels for hospital services. I will also refer to the views of the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing.

The TUC believes that the Act

“is unfair, undemocratic and likely in breach of our international legal commitments.”

Its view is that it is

“the fundamental right of a worker to take industrial action to defend their pay and conditions”

and that

“secretaries of state are to be given enormous power to define and introduce minimum service requirements”.

It says the Act is

“draconian: it could lead to individual workers being sacked for taking part in industrial action that was supported in a democratic process”,

with trade unions facing large damages if deemed to be non-compliant with this code of practice. Perhaps the Minister will answer the question with which he was challenged by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. The Minister was quoted as saying that no one would be dismissed as a result of this legislation, but where does it say that?

According to the TUC, the Act is “unnecessary”—it is “custom and practice” to agree “life-and-limb cover”—and “counter-productive”. That, however, is not the view of only the TUC, which points out that the Government’s own impact assessment suggests that

“industrial disputes are likely to become more protracted and prolonged as a result of introducing minimum service levels”.

In summary, the TUC believes the approach is unacceptable, anti-democratic, draconian and, ultimately, both unnecessary and counterproductive.

Given the purpose of this Delegated Legislation Committee, a further quote from the TUC might prove to be the undoing of the code of practice:

“Given the fact that the services subject to MSLs are to be determined by Secondary Legislation, there remains a number of uncertainties around (a) the extent to which the policy would restrict the right to strike, (b) the relationship between the ability to strike and the strength of workers’ ability to bargain on terms and conditions of employment through collective bargaining, and (c) the value workers place on collective bargaining relating to terms and conditions of employment.”

Those comments are also derived from the Government’s impact assessment.

Conservative Members may simply choose to disregard the findings of such an impact assessment. They would find interesting backers in doing so, as the Government’s own Regulatory Policy Committee judged the impact assessment of the Act

“red-rated as not fit-for-purpose”,

and found that the Government make

“use of assumptions in the analysis which are not supported by evidence”—

here is us thinking that the Boris Johnson days were gone. There are other, less parliamentary ways to describe making use of assumptions that are not supported by the evidence, which I will leave to the imagination of Members.

Let us now explore the views of the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing. Agreement among health sector unions is clear, as the BMA also considers the proposals for minimum strike levels to be

“counterproductive, undemocratic, unworkable, and draconian”.

The legislation seems to be little more than a smokescreen. Instead of addressing the state of the NHS, which currently compromises patient safety on a daily basis, or the underlying reasons why doctors and other healthcare staff have been striking in some parts of the UK, if not in others, the Government are trying to paint healthcare workers as the villains of the piece, rather than the victims of governmental action and inaction. I specifically mention striking “in some parts of the UK,” because a different and more respectful approach to public service employees in Scotland has resulted in something closer to industrial harmony. Perhaps others should watch and learn from what the Scottish Government are achieving in public sector relations.

Throughout these islands, a long-standing history of constructive joint working between NHS employers and trade unions at a local level has patient safety at its heart. The introduction of minimum service levels in hospitals would poison those industrial relations. It would replace a system under which those who understand the local situation tailor their response to the needs of hospital service users with a national service level mandated from Whitehall and designed by those who arrogantly assume that they know better.

Although the Government’s consultation seemed to find that several critical incidents arose due to strike action, data from a freedom of information request suggests otherwise. It is unclear whether any were a direct result of action being called. Rather than demonstrating that patient safety was compromised due to industrial action, the data shows the importance of tackling the stresses that the NHS faces on a daily basis.

The BMA has repeatedly raised concerns that the “reasonable steps” that unions would be required to take to comply with the Act would force unions to act in a way that undermines their responsibility to represent their members. It is not “reasonable” to expect unions to take any steps that would undermine legitimate strike action, for which they will have passed a high threshold to have a lawful mandate under trade union legislation.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Debate between Chris Stephens and Rachael Maskell

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 21st June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens]

I, too, refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. In opening the debate, the Minister skirted round amendment 4B and just said that the Government were opposed to it. A number of us intervened at the time, but I really do think that he needs to consider the Government’s position carefully, particularly on that amendment, because it gets to the heart of the Bill and why so many of us are expressing concerns about the attacks on natural justice and on human rights.

Lords amendment 4B asks that employees receive a work notice in good time. It seems fairly uncontroversial that a work notice should be issued to a worker in good time if they are to attend their work. If we do not accept the amendment, we will end up with a scenario where someone returns to work after a day of industrial action and is told they are being dismissed with no evidence whatsoever that they have been given a work notice. Of course, the Government do not want to give the responsibility for the work notice to the employer, so the employer will have no obligation at all to serve an employee with a work notice, but they could dismiss them the very next day after industrial action.

Let me emphasise that the employee would have no recourse to an employment tribunal. Surely it is a fundamental human right, and fundamental to natural justice, that if a worker is dismissed, they have recourse to a tribunal to challenge that decision. That, to me, seems fairly self-evident and obvious, but the Government are allowing a situation where rogue employers will be able to dismiss a worker for taking part in industrial action with no recourse to a tribunal, and they will not need to evidence the fact that that worker was served with a work notice.

The Government find themselves in a preposterous situation by opposing Lords amendment 4B, so I hope that the Minister will be able to answer some of these questions. Is it really the Government’s position, as I have outlined, that it is okay for an employer to dismiss those on strike and that they will not need to provide evidence that the employee was obliged to go into work? It is ludicrous.

[Rachael Maskell]

While the Government clearly do not want workers to have access to justice through the employment tribunal, of course those workers’ human rights will have been infringed, so will they not have access to other courts to challenge this egregious legislation?

[Chris Stephens]

Hopefully the Minister will answer that question.

The Minister did say in answer to my intervention that it happens in other countries. Yes, it happens in Russia and Hungary. Are Government Members really going to justify the Bill by saying, “It happens in other countries like Hungary and Russia”? Is that the Government’s example? Let me name another country—Italy, where workers can be disciplined but short of dismissal. But the Government do not want to follow the Italian model; they want to be in line with Hungary and Russia. It is incredible that the Government have found themselves in that position.

Employment Agencies and Trade Unions

Debate between Chris Stephens and Rachael Maskell

Monday 11th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens]

Well, it was about what implements could be used to discipline a worker. The hon. Gentleman may want to reflect on that, because the Whips might have done something to him last week when he was taking his industrial action.

What the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) said was correct. I do not think the Conservatives understand what happens in the workplace. That is the issue here. They think that agencies will replace the striking workers, but that is just not going to happen. An agency worker who can choose between crossing a picket line to get a shift and not crossing the picket line and getting a shift somewhere else will choose the latter option.

[Rachael Maskell]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. It is also the case that employers in safety-critical industries will not want to hire agency workers because they know that the liability will sit with them when the injuries and the accidents occur. Those roles often feature in safety-critical areas. These workers are simply irreplaceable.

[Chris Stephens]

That is absolutely true. There is a suggestion that the rail industry could bust the current rail dispute by hiring agency workers. Where are the unemployed signalmen who are sitting at home saying, “I cannot wait for the railway workers to go on strike so I can get a shift”? Those people do not exist. This is completely wrongheaded, and utterly impractical. In the gig economy, so-called key workers fighting for better employment terms and pay seem to be expendable under a Tory Government who do not care. Where is the employment Bill that the Government have been promising us since 2015?

There is another point that I forgot to make at the beginning of my speech. Last week, after his resignation, the Prime Minister made a commitment not to introduce legislation that was not in the Government’s manifesto, and not to introduce controversial legislation. Well, by any measure, this is controversial legislation, and, crucially, it was not in the Conservative party manifesto, and therefore it should not be introduced.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the compatibility of the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations 2022—which we are discussing today—with the Human Rights Act, the trade and co-operation agreement with the European Union, and the UK’s commitment to the International Labour Organisation’s fundamental conventions, including convention 87, article 3?

We have heard about the impact assessment, but what consultation have the Government had with the rail industry employers, rail industry unions and rail industry regulators, including the Rail Safety and Standards Board, about the risk assessment of the use of agency workers in safety-critical parts of the rail industry? What consultations have the Government had with devolved Administrations, local authorities, health boards and other public services? I am guessing that they have not had such consultations, because if they had, they would have been told that these proposals were not workable. And what consultation have the Government had with the employment agencies themselves? We have already heard that the agencies do not support this legislation.

We in the SNP will certainly be opposing this statutory instrument and supporting the Labour prayer. My friend on the Labour Front Bench, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, is a good Unison comrade and I have known her for 15 years. I know that the trade union is proud of her working here, as well as of other hon. Members.

It is madness to say that no impact assessment has been produced for this SI because no significant impact on the private, voluntary or public sectors is foreseen. Fining trade unions for pursuing strike action that is deemed unlawful is a deliberate Tory attack to undermine the ability of trade union members and working people to pursue their aims. Instead, the Transport Minister should be negotiating with the trade unions—sitting down with them and seeing if he can help to resolve this dispute. It is quite incredible how this Government do not understand working people or how modern trade-unionised workplaces operate. This statutory instrument that they are proposing should therefore be placed in the bin.

Public Sector Pay Policy

Debate between Chris Stephens and Rachael Maskell

Tuesday 5th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Chris Stephens]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that, and as a proud trade unionist myself I look forward to signing the early-day motion that celebrates 150 years of the Trades Union Congress. The point he makes is absolutely right: there is a growing pay gap between the older and younger generations. In addition, there is a real challenge on the gender pay gap.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. I want to draw attention to another inequality in having a 1% pay cap. The lowest earners who get 1% see only a little increase in their pay, compared with the top of the civil service, where they see a massive increase. Surely that inequality must be addressed.

[Chris Stephens]

I agree with the hon. Lady. As someone involved in the trade union movement, I was particularly of the view that we should look at flat-rate claims as well as percentage claims, so that the low-paid got a bigger pay increase. I will touch on some of the issues around low pay for civil servants later.

I hope that the Minister will agree, however, that having more than 200 different sets of pay negotiations for civil servants in UK Departments is frankly nonsense. Towards the end of May, PCS received correspondence from the Cabinet Office seeking a meeting to discuss the pay claim. In May, the PCS annual delegate conference, which I attended to give the PCS parliamentary group report, discussed the issue of pay.

There are different approaches in these islands, such as those of the NHS and the Scottish Government. Funded pay rises have been made available in those two bodies. In the NHS, an agreement for public sector workers has been reached with unions: a funded increase that will see staff offered long overdue pay rises of between 6.5% and 29% over the next three years. Additional funding of £4.2 billion for that has been agreed by the Treasury, meaning that the increase to the NHS pay bill will not come from within existing budgets.

Policy on public sector pay is devolved in Scotland. In the Scottish Government sector, the PCS is moving towards agreed settlements with the employer across all bargaining areas, which include: those earning under £36,5000 receiving 3% plus progression, or 3% plus 1% non-consolidated for those on the maximum pay rate; progression payments of 2.5% plus an additional top-up to the maximum for those five years in the grade; maternity pay increased to 27 weeks of full pay; paternity pay increased to four weeks of full pay; occupational sick pay extended to include all staff on entry; no compulsory redundancy guarantees being extended; and assurances on equality impact assessments.

The Scottish Government have been flooded with applications from civil servants who are employed by UK Government Departments and see a vacancy for the Scottish Government. In Scotland, people who happen to work for a UK Government Department will see many of their colleagues leave to get a better pay rise by working for the Scottish Government. I hope that as part of the competition in many areas between Scotland and England, the UK Government will increase their pay rises to match those of the Scottish Government.

Civil servants deliver cradle-to-grave services daily, from driving test examinations to collecting tax, running our prisons, supporting our armed services, administering our justice system, staffing our borders, renewing our passports, looking after our museums and galleries, supporting the unemployed into work and maintaining our transport system. The civil service is the engine room of the country. Brexit is a key challenge faced by the country. Clearly, it is essential that the civil service is robust and resourced effectively to face that challenge.

The trade union undertook a consultative ballot of members towards the end of last year. The mandate was clear: members in the civil service are against a continuation of the 1% cap and are willing to take industrial action to demand that. In a 49% turnout, 99% of PCS members voted to reject the pay cap and 80% supported industrial action if required. That campaign will continue apace in 2018 in workplaces and in PCS branches and groups.

Implementation of the 1995 and 2011 Pension Acts

Debate between Chris Stephens and Rachael Maskell

Tuesday 11th October 2016 Commons Chamber

Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)

- Hansard -

I rise to present a petition on behalf of hundreds of residents of the Glasgow South West constituency in the same terms as that of the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South.

The petition of residents of Glasgow South West.

[P001741]

Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

I rise to present this petition on behalf of the residents of York Central in the same terms as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South, on behalf of all WASPI women.

The petition of residents of York Central.

[P001742]

Trade Union Bill

Debate between Chris Stephens and Rachael Maskell

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens]

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps it is because Conservative Members fear the inevitable visit of three ghosts on Christmas eve.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with Electoral Reform Services, which has run more than 2,000 ballots, that there has not been a single security breach in all those ballots and that, therefore, it is a very secure mechanism?

[Chris Stephens]

I agree, and that evidence came out in Committee.

Workplace balloting is an available secure option that increases democracy in the workplace. The 1992 Act already permits workplace ballots to be used for statutory recognition ballots, under schedule Al. Workplace ballots of that nature are secure and overseen by qualified independent persons, usually Electoral Reform Services. The individuals and balloting agencies permitted to act in statutory recognition ballots are generally the same as those who act as scrutineers in industrial action ballots and other statutory union elections and ballots.

An analysis of Central Arbitration Committee reports indicates that turnout tends to be significantly higher in ballots where all workers voted in the workplace. Average turnout was 88%, and in combination ballots average turnout was 86.9%. The average turnout in postal-only ballots was 71.6 %. According to the TUC, there is no evidence that workers feel intimidated into voting a particular way when ballots take place in the workplace. Of the complaints that the CAC was asked to decide on, five were made by unions and one by an employer. None of the complaints was upheld.

We are told that electronic voting is not safe. Thousands of private sector, voluntary and political organisations use electronic voting every year. Electoral Reform Services alone manages more than 2,000 annually, and its report concludes that online voting is no less secure than postal balloting. It says:

“There are risks associated with electronic voting but these are essentially similar to the risks associated with any secure electronic process. Many of the risks are also of the same nature as the risks related to postal voting”.