Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Saqib Bhatti Excerpts
2nd reading
Monday 16th January 2023

(1 year, 11 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Grant Shapps Portrait Grant Shapps
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Let me say this, in fairness to the hon. Lady. It is the case that the employers and the unions, and more recently Ministers as well, have been meeting, and it is also the case that even when there have been ministerial meetings—including in Scotland and Labour Wales—the disputes have continued. So we clearly cannot continue to rely on voluntary arrangements to ensure the safety of the people we represent. After all, strokes and heart attacks do not respect boundaries such as trust borders. I am intrigued to know what Labour Members would say to their constituents, perhaps grieving constituents who have lost loved ones because of some sort of postcode lottery.

Saqib Bhatti Portrait Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
- Hansard - -

Last week, during my weekly surgery, a constituent asked me why the Labour party was too scared to ask its trade union colleagues to come to the table and negotiate a peaceful resolution—[Interruption.]

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Portrait Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. Members must not shout other Members down.

Saqib Bhatti Portrait Saqib Bhatti
- Hansard - -

I could not figure out why Labour was scared to encourage trade unionists to come to the table. Why does the Secretary of State think Labour is so scared of securing a peaceful resolution of the strikes?

Grant Shapps Portrait Grant Shapps
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I think there are 120 million very good answers to that question. We have an opportunity to keep people, their families and their jobs safe during periods of disruption, and that is what we intend to do.

--- Later in debate ---
Saqib Bhatti Portrait Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

I stand to speak in favour of the legislation and to commend the Government for taking this difficult but necessary step.

Today I want to talk about duty. Through this legislation, we on the Conservative Benches are fulfilling our duty to protect our constituents. Those on the Labour Benches—in hock to their trade union masters—are failing theirs. Nurses, teachers, firefighters and all the other professions covered in the legislation are true heroes in our society. They carry out a great service to our communities. We must continue to focus on growing our economy to meet the wage demands of public sector workers, but we must also maintain the independence of pay review bodies precisely so that we can take the politics out of public sector pay. The conversation should also be about fairness and balancing the right to strike with the public’s right to be kept safe.

I understand the value of a trade union—I understand that workers may want to organise to protect pay and working conditions—but what we are seeing is hard-left leaders and militant trade unions taking advantage of economic difficulty to instigate what is effectively a rolling general strike. When those actions put lives at risk, we Conservatives know that we must take action.

A minimum service level need not be controversial. If the trade unions offer a safe level of service at the very least, there is no need to have a minimum service level. We saw that with the Royal College of Nursing, which maintained a safe level of service. That just goes to show how selfless and professional those nurses where while exercising their democratic right, and I am grateful to them for protecting the public. I certainly hope that, in the next independent pay review, we reach a positive result and avoid future strike action. The concept of minimum service levels is protected in article 11 of the ECHR and is endorsed by the International Labour Organisation. As we have already heard, this is no different from what is done in Italy, France and Spain.

In that light, I find the position of the Labour party quite astonishing. We all have a primary duty to protect our constituents and our communities. By opposing the legislation, the Labour party is, in my view, failing in that duty. To be frank, Labour has supported the strikes, whether implicitly or explicitly. At best, it has failed to take an appropriate stand against the trade unions; at worst, it is egging them on and relishing the disruption and division being caused. Is that what the modern Labour party stands for—closing down our schools, bringing our country to a standstill and threatening livelihoods? I know it is a new year, Mr Deputy Speaker, but it is the same old Labour party.

We on the Government Benches will not compromise on our fundamental duty. We will do all we can to protect our constituents, our communities and our society. That is why I endorse the Bill.