Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Sam Tarry

Committee stage
Monday 30th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I do not want to be disagreeable, but I do not take that view. I think the Bill has been brought forward as it is because, actually, it is easy for Governments to bring forward skeleton legislation. In my view, it exhibits a general trend in a very acute form. The tendency for Governments to do so goes back many years. Thanks to a House of Lords report, I have a quotation from 1929 from Lord Chief Justice Hewart, who was concerned even then about excess powers being taken. But this Bill puts it in such an acute form, because clause 3 is simply so wide ranging.

I think that this is seeking the easy way to legislate. In my experience, parliamentary counsel, who are among the finest civil servants in the country—the work they do is phenomenal—are never defeated by time, but they are sometimes defeated by political instruction. Had they been instructed to draft a Bill that contained the proper details of what is needed, they would have been able to do so.

[Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)]

I have listened carefully to the right hon. Member’s erudite exposition of the constitutional matters affecting the Bill. I draw his attention to the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), who, in recent discussions with the trade unions, made it clear that this was about one thing only—pay—and that the Government would not “capitulate” to the rail trade unions because they would have to give a fair deal to every other sector going on strike, with the latest being the firefighters.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I agree with what the Bill is intended to do. I think that minimum levels of service are perfectly reasonable and not an outrageous thing to ask; they apply to the police and to the armed services. My objection is not to the aim of the Bill; it is merely about the constitutional process.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Sam Tarry

Thursday 17th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Slightly warming to my earlier theme, I am not entirely sure why a retired footballer is paid more than Vic Marks, a distinguished Somerset cricketer who regularly appears as an expert summariser on “Test Match Special”. I would have thought that he was deserving of much more money than a retired association footballer.

I do think that the BBC has been unfair on pensioners in requiring them to pay the licence fee. The hope was that it would not do that. It is basically stealing the Ovaltine from pensioners’ night-time drink by charging them the licence fee, and it is losing licence fee payers: it has lost a quarter of a million licence fee payers in the last year, as people vote with their feet. I think the BBC needs to pay attention to what my hon. Friend says. When it charges some of the least well-off in our society and gives the money to some of the most well-off in our society, there are people who will rightly question that—especially when it is not giving it to cricketers.

[Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)]

In my constituency in the last week, we have been desperately trying to avoid a local lockdown—to be honest, with little help from the Government. Last week, I took it upon myself to work with a local charity, Sindh Doctors Association UK, to deliver some IT equipment to my lovely old primary school, which was gratefully received for distribution to disadvantaged students.

Just last year, the Office for National Statistics said that around 700,000 young people, including those at secondary school but not those at primary school, do not have proper access to the internet, or a tablet or computer. May we therefore have a debate in Government time on the provision of IT equipment, including tablets, routers and all the other equipment that young people will need if our country is heading into further localised lockdowns or even, as rumoured today, a potential national lockdown? Our pupils have already suffered enough in the last year, and we want the Government to take every opportunity to ensure that they do not fail again to deliver such technology, which they said they would deliver but then did not, to so many young people.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point about ensuring that there is support for young people who do not have access to the necessary technology. There is a £350 million national tutoring programme, which is a package of targeted funding for the most disadvantaged pupils to try to ensure that they can catch up on anything that they have missed, in addition to a £100 million fund to boost remote education, which is obviously helping with the technology. The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point; I think it is worth asking for an Adjournment debate on this issue, but the Government are taking steps in a direction that I hope he will approve of.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Sam Tarry

Thursday 27th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend tempts me beyond my brief—one never knows: I might start advocating for all those agencies to move to North East Somerset rather than to the constituencies of my hon. Friends. The point has been made and heard, and I will ensure that it is passed on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

[Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)]

May I bring the House’s attention to early-day motion 220 on the harassment of trade unionists at London City airport?

[That this House reaffirms the right of workers to organise collectively into trade unions; stipulates that this right includes workers at London City Airport; notes that a Unite the Union activist, was suspended and had disciplinary proceedings brought against them less than two weeks after the airport received an official request for union recognition in August 2019; recalls that in 2012 an Employment Tribunal found in an interim relief test in London City Airport Ltd v Chacko that another trade union representative had been similarly suspended by City Airport three days after the announcement of a recognition ballot; states that such intimidation is unacceptable; and calls on City Airport to end harassment of trade unionists and enable its workers to decide upon how they wish to be represented.]

Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate or statement about what has gone on at London City airport? Surely a Government who claim to be on the side of the workers will want to make time for that, so that Members can hear that such things will not be allowed to continue. One of my constituents has been sacked from their job, specifically for trade union activities.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Everybody should feel content in their place of work. The House of Commons has set up the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme to deal with complaints, and we urge other employers to have similar arrangements in place. I tend to think that such specific issues are well handled by Adjournment debates, which bring them to the right level of attention.