UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Trade Unions

  • Paul Nowak – 2025 Speech to TUC Conference

    Paul Nowak – 2025 Speech to TUC Conference

    The speech made by Paul Nowak, the General Secretary of the TUC, in Brighton on 8 September 2025.

    80 years ago, our Congress met, just weeks after the end of the most devastating conflict in human history

    Tens of millions killed on the battlefield.

    Millions slaughtered in Nazi concentration camps.

    And millions more – across the globe – the innocent victims of war, including more than 200,000 men, women and children who died when the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    At that historic Congress in 1945, our then President – Charles Dukes – reflected, that out of the ruins of war,

    ‘We are offered the opportunity of making a clean new start….

    In the hands of freedom loving people, the new world waits to be built.

    Peace and security must ever be its foundations’.

    But today, as we meet in Brighton eight decades on, that vision, that hope, seems a long way off.

    We see a world riven by conflict, by war, by inhumanity.

    A world where authoritarian governments act with impunity.

    And a world where the populist and far-right are once again emboldened.

    So my first call to you today is simply this.

    Let us honour the vision set out to delegates at that Congress in 1945.

    Let us take a stand for solidarity not division.

    And for a world where everyone can live, thrive and work, in peace.

    ——————-

    Congress, I want to start by celebrating our successes.

    I want you to compare where we are now, with when I first addressed you as general secretary in Liverpool two years ago.

    The Tories anti-strike legislation…now gone…Our right to strike…protected.

    Hundreds of disputes across the public and private sector…won

    A public inquiry into the scandal at Orgreave…secured.

    And the Employment Rights Bill  – about to be given Royal assent in a matter of weeks.

    Not by chance.

    Not by accident.

    But because we fought for it.

    We campaigned for it.

    And we will ensure it’s delivered, in full.

    Congress – we are winning for workers.

    ———————

    And that’s not all.

    It was unions, and a Labour government working together, that saw Parliament recalled and thousands of jobs saved in British Steel.

    It is thanks to our campaigning over decades that Britain’s railways are coming back where they belong – in public ownership.

    And it is thanks to us and our calls for taxes on the wealthiest, that at the Budget the Chancellor abolished tax breaks for non-doms, and introduced VAT on private school fees.

    Increased taxes on private jets.

    And even clamped down on well-known TV personalities buying farms to avoid taxes.

    Taxes that are vital for our NHS, and our schools.

    Again.

    Not by chance.

    Not by accident.

    But because we fought for it, we campaigned for it , and Congress, we won it.

    ——————

    It is right to celebrate our success, because our movement is needed now more than ever.

    The populist right is fuelling the narrative that Britain is in decline.

    And of course, we know this country faces huge challenges.

     That’s the toxic legacy of Tory destruction:

    • 14 years of stagnant wages and living standards.

    • 14 years of austerity and cuts to public services.

    • 14 years of rising insecurity and inequality.

    Congress, the Tories took Britain to the brink, and the public knows it.

    That’s why last July, the government was elected on a manifesto that promised change.

    But we have to be honest.

    For too many people, change still feels like a slogan – not a lived reality.

    That cannot continue.

    Think about that 1945 Congress, and think about that 1945 government.

    Throughout our history, we’ve been at our best when we’ve been ambitious for working people.

    So today, my message to the government is simply this.

    Deliver the manifesto on which you won a huge majority last July.

    Deliver good jobs, decent public services and better living standards in every corner of the country.

    Deliver the change people voted for and show working people whose side you are on.

    ———————-

    Congress, if the choice is asking the rich to pay their fair share of tax.

    Or cutting our public services.

    Then a Labour government must always be on the side of patients, parents and pensioners.

     If the choice is a fair deal for low-paid women.

    Or pandering to the outsourcing giants who profit from poverty pay

    Then a Labour government must always be on the side of the people struggling to make ends meet.

    And if the choice is making sure the Amazons of this world play by the rules.

    Or allowing corporate bully boys to trample over workers’ rights.

    Then a Labour government must always be on the side of workers standing up for a fair deal.

    And don’t just tell people you’re on their side.

    Show them.

    Introduce a windfall tax on record bank profits and gambling companies.

    And back it with new taxes on wealth.

    Congress – if billionaires can afford fleets of private yachts.

    And day trips into space.

    And weddings that shut down Venice.

    They can pay a bit more tax.

    Do what’s best for those who go out to work day in, day out, and still can’t get by  – deliver the Employment Rights Bill and deliver it in full.

    And make it clear – a Labour government will never stand aside and watch a child’s potential be wasted because of poverty – lift the two child cap, and give our kids the future they deserve.

    Now Congress it is obvious that over the last 14 months, the government haven’t got everything right, and we have called them out when they haven’t got it right.

    But, Congress be clear.

    The biggest threat to working class people in this country are the bad bosses and the right-wing populists.

    A nasty combination that should worry any trade unionist and any worker.

    Just look at the Employment Rights Bill.

    The government has a manifesto promise to make work pay.

    Stronger rights at work are overwhelmingly popular with voters across the political spectrum

    The public knows decent work is the best way to deliver the reset this country needs.

    The best way to improve living standards.

    And the best way to rebuild our communities hit hard by low pay and insecure work…the sort of communities Nigel Farage likes to say he represents.

    But here’s the truth.

    There is a world of difference between what Nigel says, and what Nigel does.

    Every single Reform MP, including Mr Farage, voted against outlawing fire and rehire.

    Against banning zero hours contracts.

    And against day one rights for millions of workers.

    So here’s my challenge to Nigel Farage.

    Say you stand up for working people?

    Then ignore your wealthy backers and vote for the Employment Rights Bill.

    Say you stand up for British industry?

    Then stop supporting Donald Trump and his destructive tariffs.

    And say you believe in the NHS?

    Then look the British public in the eye and tell them why you support US-style private healthcare.

    Nigel Farage, it’s time to come clean about whose side you are really on.

    Because here’s the truth:

    You’re not representing working people

    You are selling them out.

    To those who voted Reform at the last election, and to those who are considering voting for Reform…

    I get your frustration with mainstream politics.

    I get your sense that change isn’t coming fast enough

    And I respect your right to vote for whoever you choose.

    But ask yourself this fundamental question.

    Do you believe, in your gut, that Nigel Farage really cares about the people of Clacton, when he is off collecting his speaker fees in the United States?

    That Richard Tice really worries about the people of Skegness, while he’s living it up at home in Dubai?

    Or are they just right-wing con-men, lining their own pockets.

    And they’re not alone.

    The modern Tory Party loses credibility with every single passing day.

    And I have to just say this….no amount of TikToks, or Ozempic, or expensive haircuts will ever hide the inner ugliness of Robert Jenrick.

    The man who ordered murals painted over in a reception centre for children seeking asylum is, indeed, a xenophobe.

    An opportunistic xenophobe helping to create a political climate that ends up with far-right thugs laying siege to hotels, and Black and Asian people being threatened and harassed on our streets.

    And let me just say this about flags.

    I understand people take pride in the Union Jack, in the St Georges Cross, the Saltire and the Red Dragon.

    But patriotism is about much more than flags.

    As that 1945 generation knew, real patriotism is about building decent homes, and ensuring no-one is left behind.

    It’s about creating good jobs so people aren’t left in poverty and feel pride in their labour..

    And real patriotism is never about daubing graffiti on people’s homes or shops or intimidating our friends and neighbours.

    That’s not patriotism and it should shame anyone who loves this country.

    ——-

    Congress, the far right, and populist right don’t care about working class people, they don’t speak for working class people, and they never will.

    That’s our job. That’s what we stand for.

    —–

    Now two years ago in Liverpool, I told you about my grandad Joe.

    About my pride in him coming to Britain from Poland to help in the fight against fascism.

    And my even greater pride in him building his life here in Britain.

    Part of that 1945 generation who rebuilt this country, and rebuilt Europe after the war.

    His generation, Charles Dukes’ generation, thought they had vanquished the darkness of authoritarianism, and the darkness of war.

    But Congress right now, that darkness is everywhere.

    In Ukraine.

    In Sudan.

    And of course, in Gaza.

    A humanitarian crisis that shames the world.

    Thousands of starving civilians – women and children – killed while queuing for food.

    Hospitals, aid workers and journalists deliberately targeted.

    Kids seeking clean water attacked by the IDF.

    Congress – Israeli and Palestinian Human Rights groups are clear.

    Amnesty International are clear

    Medicins Sans Frontieres are clear.

    And I think we should be clear.

    Benjamin Nethanyu’s government is committing genocide in Gaza.

    In April, I travelled to Palestine.

    And saw the conditions workers and unions face in the West Bank.

    One of the communities I visited, where a mosque had been burnt out, has now been erased from the map at gunpoint, by illegal settlers.

    Homes, land, livelihoods – stolen.

    I’m proud to say we are joined today by Shaher Saed, general secretary of Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions.

    Shaher please stand up.

    Today, in front of Shaher, let us reiterate our movement’s calls.

    A new, permanent ceasefire.

    The release of all hostages and political prisoners.

    Suspension of the UK’s trade deal with Israel.

    Tougher sanctions.

    A ban on imports from the occupied territories.

    Respect for international law.

    An end to licences for arms traded with Israel.

    And the immediate recognition of the state of Palestine.

    Because you can’t have a two-state solution.

    Without a safe, secure and free Palestine.

    ——

    A better future in the Middle East.

    And Congress, a better future at home.

    A country where your postcode doesn’t determine your life chances.

    Where public services are a source of pride – not profit.

    Jobs you can build a life on.

    Wages that keep up with the cost of living – and then go further.

    Thriving communities and high streets.

    And a government that puts people, not profit, first.

    A better future means a fair, managed and compassionate approach to migration.

    A better future means industrial renewal, strong public services and fixing the Tories’ bad Brexit deal.

    And a better future means

    every new school,

    every hospital,

    every power station,

    every wind turbine,

    built with union labour

    proper apprenticeships

    and supporting UK jobs.

    Congress – we have so much to do to put right 14 years of Tory government.

    But I know that our movement can, and will, rise to the challenge, because we have done it before, and we can do it again.

    In 1945 – when my grandad, your grandparents,  our unions and a Labour government.

    Battered by six years of war.

    Created the NHS.

    Built hundreds of thousands of new homes.

    Rebuilt our economy.

    And not just in 1945.

    The minimum wage.

    Paid holidays.

    Maternity leave.

    The right to join a union.

    Universal education.

    Protection from discrimination.

    So much more.

    None of these… None of these, were handed down.

    They were fought for by people in unions.

    At our best when we are ambitious for working people, their families and communities.

    At our best when we work together, united, as a labour and trade union movement.

    So here is our challenge to government.

    Deliver that employment rights bill in full, deliver the change you promised at the election…

    …and show working class people you are on their side.

    A challenge to employers.

    Don’t fall on the wrong side of history.

    Don’t repeat the mistakes of opposing the minimum wage.

    Respect the government’s mandate to improve rights at work.

    And finally, a challenge to me

    To every member of TUC staff.

    To every delegate in this hall.

    And to every trade union activist and rep out there in workplaces.

    To grow our movement.

    To take those new rights into workplaces up and down the country.

    And to reassert the reason this movement exists.

    To stand with, and win for, working people in every town, in every sector, every generation, every community.

    Congress.

    This movement has shaped the history of our country.

    Now it’s time to shape the future.

    Let’s get to it.

    Solidarity Congress.

  • Elliot Colburn – 2023 Parliamentary Question on Operation of Public Services During Industrial Action

    Elliot Colburn – 2023 Parliamentary Question on Operation of Public Services During Industrial Action

    The parliamentary question asked by Elliot Colburn, the Conservative MP for Carshalton and Wallington, in the House of Commons on 2 February 2023.

    Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)

    What steps his Department is taking to support the operation of public services during industrial action.

    Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)

    What steps his Department is taking to support the operation of public services during industrial action.

    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Oliver Dowden)

    All Departments are responsible for their own business continuity plans and have well-established contingency arrangements. The Cabinet Office’s Cobra unit has supported Departments to develop those arrangements to minimise the impact on public services. Yesterday, for example, more than 600 military personnel undertook action to support a smooth flow at the border. I pay tribute to the work that they and others did.

    Elliot Colburn

    As if the ultra low emission zone were not bad enough, Carshalton and Wallington residents have had to deal with strikes affecting the transport network, despite the Mayor’s promise of zero strikes. There is a very important point to be made about safety as a result of the ongoing impact on the transport network. Bus stops and railway stations in London face dangerous overcrowding when strikes are on. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the safety of the remainder of the transport network will be a key factor when minimum service levels are set?

    Oliver Dowden

    As a Member of Parliament whose constituency borders London, I share my hon. Friend’s deep frustration with the conduct of the Mayor and with the ULEZ, which is a tax on hard-working commuters and citizens in London. My hon. Friend rightly raises a point about minimum service levels, which are at the root of the Government’s legislation—the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill, which passed through this House in the face of opposition from the Labour party—to protect standards of service and safety on our transport network.

    Edward Timpson

    Ambulance response times, particularly in rural areas such as Eddisbury, are one of those issues on which I seem to have been campaigning since I first came to Parliament. Like others, I am perplexed by the contrarian and regressive turn that has been taken in the policy area by unions representing ambulance workers, which are refusing to agree to minimum service and safety levels during industrial action. Does my right hon. Friend agree that they should embrace those common- sense measures? Perhaps the public would then be more sympathetic in the subsequent collective bargaining.

    Oliver Dowden

    As ever, I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. The public expect a minimum safety level in core public services such as ambulance provision, as exists in comparable European countries. This is a sensible, straightforward measure to ensure patient safety at a time of most desperate need, which is why the Government are bringing it forward—again, in the teeth of opposition from the Labour party.

  • Jack Lopresti – 2023 Parliamentary Question on Ambulance Cover on Strike Days

    Jack Lopresti – 2023 Parliamentary Question on Ambulance Cover on Strike Days

    The parliamentary question asked by Jack Lopresti, the Conservative MP for Filton and Bradley Stoke, in the House of Commons on 24 January 2023.

    Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)

    What steps he is taking to ensure that ambulance services continue to operate during strikes.

    The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Barclay)

    We have introduced a range of contingency measures, such as the provision of military personnel, who are available to assist with the driving of ambulances, and community first responders, who can help before ambulances arrive on the scene.

    Jack Lopresti

    Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking call handlers at the South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust—and the public—for halving the number of 999 calls to the trust over the last month, and reducing average call answering times by 95%, to just three seconds? Will he also join me in expressing dismay at the approach taken by the Leader of the Opposition during the most recent session of Prime Minister’s Question Time in seeking to sow fear in the hearts of my constituents and others for his own narrow political gain?

    Steve Barclay

    I am happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the work of call handlers at the South Western Ambulance Service, and to the staff there as a whole. He is right to draw attention to the improved performance that we have seen in recent weeks, and also right to point out that all parts of the United Kingdom have faced considerable challenges, particularly over the Christmas period when we saw a significant spike in flu levels.

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

    We have just heard in the Health and Social Care Committee that on strike days there was a drop in service demand, but also value added by the increased clinical support, resulting in better and more cost-effective decisions. Why does that happen on strike days rather than on every single day of the year?

    Steve Barclay

    We are taking a number of steps to improve performance, and not just on strike days—but I thought the hon. Lady was going to refer to the comment that she made about those on her own Front Bench, when she said:

    “I think what our health team need to do is really spend more time in that environment with clinicians to really understand what drives them.”

    We on this side of the House are spending a significant amount of time with clinicians, and it is important that those on the hon. Lady’s Front Bench do so as well.

  • Neale Hanvey – 2023 Parliamentary Question to Prime Minister on Health Strikes

    Neale Hanvey – 2023 Parliamentary Question to Prime Minister on Health Strikes

    The parliamentary question asked by Neale Hanvey, the Alba MP for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, in the House of Commons on 18 January 2023.

    Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)

    A Transport Secretary implying NHS workers are deliberately putting people in danger, a Health Secretary pitting dedicated nurses against vulnerable patients—does the Prime Minister really expect the public to believe that the very people who have dedicated their lives to saving life and limb are so reckless? Is it not the case that this Government have pushed them to their absolute limit and they have no other option but to strike?

    The Prime Minister

    We have enormous respect and gratitude for all our public sector workers, especially those in the NHS. That is why we have backed them with not just record funding, but record investment in more doctors and nurses, with 15,000 more doctors, 30,000 more nurses and more lifesaving equipment that will help them to do their jobs. We continue to want to engage constructively in dialogue with them.

  • Selaine Saxby – 2023 Comments on Industrial Action and Minimum Service Levels

    Selaine Saxby – 2023 Comments on Industrial Action and Minimum Service Levels

    The comments made by Selaine Saxby, the Conservative MP for North Devon, in the House of Commons on 10 January 2023.

    Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)

    Strikes have a disproportionate impact in rural Britain, where there are no other modes of public transport. The nearest alternative hospital may be more than 60 miles away and ambulances have already travelled far further to get there, and that is without mentioning the vacancy rates in public services, which are so high due to our housing crisis. Can my right hon. Friend confirm how these measures will help support rural communities?

    Grant Shapps

    My hon. Friend is right. These so-called forever strikes, which have continued for month after month on the railways, are particularly hurting rural communities. It is easy sometimes for people to imagine that those affected will just sit at home on Zoom or Teams and have those conversations. That view of the world is much easier for someone in a desk job, perhaps in management. It is much harder for someone in a rural community or for a hospital porter or cleaner who needs to get to the hospital. The very people being hurt most by these strikes that never seem to come to a conclusion on the railways are the hardest-up in society. This Government will stand behind them with minimum service levels.

  • Trades Union Congress – 2022 Comments on the Australia Trade Bill

    Trades Union Congress – 2022 Comments on the Australia Trade Bill

    The comments made by the Trades Union Congress on 10 March 2022.

    Written evidence from Trades Union Congress (TUC)

    Introduction

    The TUC exists to make the working world a better place for everyone. We bring together more than 5.5 million working people who make up our 48 member unions.

    1. The TUC welcomed the opportunity to provide oral evidence to the International Trade Committee’s enquiry into the UK-Australia Free Trade Agreement (FTA) on 2 March 2022.
    2. This submission supplements the oral evidence the TUC provided to the Committee, providing more detail on issues that were highlighted in the session.

    Involvement of trade unions

    1. When negotiations started between Australia and the UK, the TUC released a joint position with our Australian counterpart the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU). [1]  This statement called for UK and Australian governments to involve trade unions in negotiations to ensure that the agreement contained the key protections working people needed, including:
    • enforceable commitments to ratify and respect International Labour Organisation core conventions on labour rights, including for migrant workers
    • protections for all public services through a complete exclusion of all public services including such as health, education and transport; opening public services – using the ‘positive list’ approach
    • protections for personal data
    • exclusion of all kinds of special courts for foreign investors such as Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) or the Investment Court System (ICS), which allow foreign investors to sue governments for actions that are perceived to threaten their profits
    1. In June 2021, the TUC and ACTU released a follow up statement expressing concern that trade unions had been excluded from negotiations and the Agreement in Principle between the UK and Australia did not suggest the final agreement would have the protections unions were calling for. [2] These fears were confirmed when the final agreement was published.
    2. The TUC issued a statement on the publication of the final agreement in December 2021. [3] This stated that the deal posed a threat to workers, due to the fact it:
    • contained no effective mechanism to enforce respect for fundamental International Labour Organisation (ILO) conventions – the agreement follows a similar approach to the Comprehensive and Progressive Transpacific Partnership (CPTPP) which has been condemned by trade union internationally for being ineffective to use in practice [4]
    • contained no protections for migrant workers’ rights in the mobility provisions
    • contained commitments to liberalise cross-border flows of data which could mean regulations to protect personal data from abuse and being used in a discriminatory way would have to be removed
    • contained inadequate exemptions for public services – using the ‘negative list’ approach – which could lock part-privatised services into privatisation
    1. The TUC calls on the government to meaningfully consult trade unions on all its ongoing trade negotiations to ensure that they contain the protections working people need.

    Gender

    1. The TUC believes it is crucial for trade agreements to prevent gender discrimination, promote decent jobs for women and protect quality public services.  It is crucial for trade unions to be involved in negotiations to ensure these outcomes.
    2. The TUC is concerned that the commitments to gender equality in the UK-Australia trade deal will not be effective in promoting gender equality as they are not accompanied by effective enforcement mechanisms.  Furthermore, the fact the Labour chapter of the agreement does not require Parties to ratify and respect all the fundamental ILO conventions means that Parties are not required to ratify and uphold convention 111 on non-discrimination which is central to addressing gender inequalities.   As noted above, the TUC is also concerned the UK-Australia FTA does not contain adequate exemptions for public services as it takes a negative list approach.  This means part-privatised services could be locked into privatisation.  This will particularly negatively impact on women as they are disproportionately likely to be caregivers relying on public services.
    3. The failure to involve trade unions in UK-Australia negotiations meant that trade unions were not able to advise the government on how the tariff offers and other provisions in the agreement would affect women workers.
    4. The TUC is concerned that a number of trade agreements and trade arrangements negotiated without trade union involvement have increased gender inequalities.  For example, the North America Free Trade Agreement signed in 1993 displaced women from stable jobs with good conditions in the manufacturing sector in the US.  The agreement also displaced women from stable jobs in agriculture in Mexico.  The European Parliament reports that poverty increased in female headed households by 50 per cent between 1992 – 2000. [5]
    5. Furthermore, it is well documented that tariff-free areas that have been established in a number of countries to process exports (Export Processing Zones) are sites where mostly women are employed on exploitative terms. [6] Workers have less protections in these zones with trade unions are frequently banned, as in Export Processing Zones in Bangladesh. [7]

    ISDS

    1. While the UK-Australia agreement does not contain an Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism, the TUC is concerned that the UK government intends to join CPTPP which contains ISDS.  Unless the UK government asks for an opt-out from the ISDS provisions with all CPTPP members, the UK would be subject to this ISDS system.  The TUC is concerned the government has not indicated to date that it will ask for such an opt-out.
    2. If the UK is bound by ISDS provisions in CPTPP, it would mean investors based in all CPTPP countries, including Australia, would be able to sue the government for actions that they perceive threaten their profits. In the past, ISDS cases have been brought against governments that attempted to increase the national minimum wage or renationalise water supplies. [8]

    March 2022

    [1] https://www.tuc.org.uk/sites/default/files/2020-09/ACTU_NZCTU_TUC_Statement_UK_Trade_Talks_p3.pdf

    [2] https://www.tuc.org.uk/australian-and-uk-unions-statement-uk-australia-trade-deal

    [3] https://www.tuc.org.uk/news/tuc-uk-aus-deal-poses-threat-working-people-while-contributing-almost-nothing-our-economy

    [4] https://www.ituc-csi.org/IMG/pdf/trans_pacific.pdf

    [5] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/571388/IPOL_STU(2016)571388_EN.pdf

    [6] https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/export-processing-zones-symbols-of-exploitation-and-a-development-dead-end/

    [7] https://www.globalrightsindex.org/en/2021

    [8] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/10/obscure-legal-system-lets-corportations-sue-states-ttip-icsid

  • Alan Brown – 2023 Speech on Industrial Action and Minimum Service Levels

    Alan Brown – 2023 Speech on Industrial Action and Minimum Service Levels

    The speech made by Alan Brown, the SNP Home Affairs spokesperson and the MP for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, in the House of Commons on 10 January 2023.

    This Government have already created the most restrictive and anti-trade union laws in Europe. This new right-wing culture war stinks, and they are using ambulance cover as a pretext to attack workers’ rights. It was the Tory membership that gave us a Prime Minister who tanked the economy overnight, put people’s mortgages up and gave us high inflation, yet it is the Tories who continue to demand that public sector workers take the hit to balance the books.

    Everyone can see the irony of the Tories clapping key workers and now giving them a pay cut and threatening them with the sack for future action. Does the Secretary of State really think that ordinary people support Tory plans over the nurses? Does he realise that the public can see Pat Cullen and Mick Lynch destroying their arguments and soundbites? Does he understand that train commuters, who already suffer from appalling service, will be raging when they find out how much money train companies are making from strike days, paid for by taxpayers? How much money has been paid to train companies that could have gone to workers instead?

    It has not been easy for the Scottish Government, but they have negotiated better pay settlements for Police Scotland, train crews and NHS workers. It is something that the Royal College of Nursing would be willing to discuss with the UK Government. Those actions were commended by the unions, but not even acknowledged by Labour. There are no ambulance strikes in Scotland, and that has been done within a fixed budget and negotiations with one hand tied behind our back. Now, despite working with the unions, Scotland is to have the same anti-worker or anti-union legislation imposed on it, against the wishes of the Scottish Government. It is an imposition made easier by the Labour party agreeing with the Tories that workers’ rights should remain with Westminster and not be devolved to Scotland. We do not want to be part of plans designed to sabotage workers’ rights. This situation has clearly shown once again that if Scotland is to become a fairer, more equal country that respects workers’ rights, the only way to do so is to become a normal independent country.

    Grant Shapps

    The hon. Gentleman tries to push the argument that somehow this legislation will take us out of step with other European countries, and I have already explained that it is we who are out of step with what already occurs elsewhere in Europe. If we go beyond Europe, he will be interested to hear that in Australia, Canada and many states in America, blue-light strikes, as we would call them, are banned entirely. We are taking a moderate, sensible approach. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would wholeheartedly support protecting his constituents in that way. While we are taking lectures from him about how the Scottish Government handle these things, I could not help noticing that Scottish primary school teachers are on strike and secondary teachers go on strike in Scotland on Wednesday.

  • Angela Rayner – 2023 Speech on Industrial Action and Minimum Service Levels

    Angela Rayner – 2023 Speech on Industrial Action and Minimum Service Levels

    The speech made by Angela Rayner, the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, in the House of Commons on 10 January 2023.

    I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and declare that I am a proud member of a trade union.

    I will start by tackling the Secretary of State’s comments. The first thing that comes to my mind in this debate and in what the Secretary of State said is what happened to my constituent Bina, who waited more than an hour for an ambulance—who died waiting for an ambulance. That was not on a strike day; it was because of the disastrous chaos we have in the system under this Conservative Government. In the past few months, we have seen ambulance workers go on their first major strike in 30 years, and the first ever strike in the history of the Royal College of Nursing. Teachers, pharmacists and civil servants—among others—are balloting as we speak. His Government offer no solution because they have caused the problem.

    The economic crisis made in Downing Street has left working people facing an economic emergency of sky-high inflation and recession. I notice that in his opening statement, the Secretary of State did not even mention—let alone apologise for—the fact that the Government crashed the economy. Nobody wants to see these strikes happen, least of all the workers who lose a day’s pay. How are the Government responding to a crisis of their own making? Not with any attempt to reach a serious long-term solution in the public interest, but by playing politics and promising yet another sticking plaster.

    The Secretary of State claims that he made progress yesterday, but the read-out from trade union representatives was dismal. Is there any chance of a deal this year? Where is the consultation he mentioned for a meaningful way forward, or was that all for show? That is the implication of his other proposal—his sacking nurses Bill. It is an outright attack on the fundamental freedom of British working people. How can he say with a straight face that this Government will always defend the ability to strike? Can he tell us whether he stands by his article in The Telegraph last summer, in which he listed yet more plans to attack that basic right? Does he deny that he considered banning some key workers from joining unions at all? So much for levelling up workers’ rights. Where is the Government’s promised code of conduct on fire and rehire, and the long-abandoned Employment Bill that they promised would tackle insecure work?

    The Secretary of State goes in one breath from thanking nurses to sacking them. That is not just insulting but utterly stupid. There is no common sense about this at all. He says that he recognises the pressures faced by key workers, but he knows that the NHS cannot find the nurses it needs to work on the wards, and that the trains do not run even on non-strike days such is the shortage of staff, so how can he seriously think that sacking thousands of key workers will not just plunge our public services further into crisis? The Transport Secretary admits it will not work, the Education Secretary does not want it, and the Government’s own impact assessment finds that it will lead to more strikes and staff shortages.

    The Secretary of State says that he is looking into six key areas. What do other Ministers think about that? Will they have to disagree on that, too? He is scraping the barrel with comparisons to France and Spain, but those countries, which he claims have these laws on striking, lose vastly more strike days than Britain. Has he taken any time at all to speak to their Governments or trade unions to learn any real lessons from them?

    The Secretary of State quotes the International Labour Organisation—I am surprised that he even knows what it is—but he will know that the ILO requires compensatory measures and an independent arbitrator. Are those in his Bill? The ILO also says that minimum service levels can happen in services only when the safety of individuals or their health is at stake. That does not include transport, Border Force or teachers, as he proposes.

    Excess deaths are at their highest levels since the pandemic peak. The public are being put at risk every day because of the Government’s NHS crisis and staffing shortages. The Secretary of State is right that his Government’s duty is to protect the public’s access to essential services, but livelihoods and lives are already being lost. We all want minimum standards of safety, service and staffing; it is Ministers who are failing to provide that. Does he not accept that trade unions and workers already take steps to protect the public during action? He singles out ambulance workers. Paramedics agreed to operate life and limb deals on a trust-by-trust basis, as he knows, to ensure that the right care continues to be delivered. He should know that service levels were at 82%, with ambulance workers consistently leaving the picket lines to make sure that emergency calls were responded to. He is threatening to rip up that protection, and for what?

    Let us look into what this is really all about: a Government who are out of ideas, out of time and fast running out of sticking plasters; a Government who are playing politics with nurses’ and teachers’ lives because they cannot stomach the co-operation and negotiation that are needed; and, a Government desperately doing all they can to distract from their economic emergency. We need negotiation not legislation, so when is the Minister going to do his job?

    Grant Shapps

    It is almost as if covid and the pressures on the NHS never occurred, according to the Opposition. I am pretty sure I heard this straight. It is almost as if Putin did not invade Ukraine, force up energy prices and force up inflation, and it is almost as if the right hon. Lady does not think that the rest of Europe is going through exactly the same thing. I was just reading an article in The Guardian saying exactly that—that other health services are experiencing exactly the same problems.

    If we are going to have a sensible debate and start working from the facts and then have a discussion, we ought to acknowledge that covid and the war in Ukraine have had a huge impact on health services here and around the world. Then we can go on to have a sensible conversation about balancing the right to strike. As I said at the top of my speech, it is a right that we fully respect and fully endorse. We believe it is part of the International Labour Organisation’s correct diagnosis of a working economy that people should be able to withdraw their labour, but that should not mean withdrawing their labour at the expense of our constituents’ lives. The right hon. Lady talks about how the ambulance service, in her words, has been reasonable and offered back-up on a trust-by-trust basis if people have heart attacks and strokes, but heart attacks and strokes do not accept or work to the boundaries of trust borders. They work nationally, and so to manage the ambulance system, we need to know that each and every one of our constituents is protected. To deny and to vote against legislation that brings in minimum safety levels to help our constituents is to attack their security and their welfare.

  • Grant Shapps – 2023 Statement on Industrial Action and Minimum Service Levels

    Grant Shapps – 2023 Statement on Industrial Action and Minimum Service Levels

    The statement made by Grant Shapps, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, in the House of Commons on 10 January 2023.

    With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on industrial action and minimum service levels.

    Nurses, paramedics and transport workers are called key workers for a reason. They truly are the lifeblood of this country; every person sitting in this Chamber is grateful for the work they do and I know everyone will agree that we cannot do without them. The Government will always defend their ability to withdraw their labour.

    However, we also recognise the pressures faced by those working in the public sector. Yesterday I invited union leaders in for talks across Government, and I am pleased to say we have seen some progress. We want to resolve disputes where possible, while also delivering what is fair and reasonable to the taxpayer. At the moment, all households are struggling with the repercussions of high inflation caused by covid and Putin’s barbaric invasion of Ukraine, and the Government are absolutely focused on tackling that.

    Granting inflation-busting pay deals that step outside of the independent pay review settlement process is not the sensible way to proceed and will not provide a fair outcome. We will instead continue to consult to find meaningful ways forward for the unions, and work with employers to improve the process and discuss the evidence that we have now submitted. In the meantime, the Government also have a duty to protect the public’s access to essential public services. Although we absolutely believe in the right to strike, we are duty-bound to protect the lives and livelihoods of the British people.

    The British people need to know that when they have a heart attack, a stroke or a serious injury, an ambulance will turn up, and that if they need hospital care, they have access to it. They need to know not only that those services are available, but that they can get trains or buses—particularly people who are most likely to be the least well-off in society.

    I thank those at the Royal College of Nursing, who, during their last strike, worked with health officials at a national level to ensure that safe levels of cover were in place when they took industrial action. They kept services such as emergency and acute care running. They may have disagreed, but they showed that they could do their protest and withdraw their labour in a reasonable and mature way. As ever, they put the public first, and we need all our public services to do the same.

    A lack of timely co-operation from the ambulance unions meant that employers could not reach agreement nationally for minimum safety levels during recent strikes. Health officials were left guessing the likely minimum coverage, making contingency planning almost impossible and putting all our constituents’ lives at risk. The ambulance strikes planned for tomorrow still do not have minimum safety levels in place. That will result in patchy emergency care for British people. This cannot continue.

    It is for moments such as this that we are introducing legislation focusing on blue-light emergency services and on delivering on our manifesto commitment to secure minimum service on the railways. I am introducing a Bill that will give the Government the power to ensure that vital public services will have to maintain a basic function, by delivering minimum safety levels to ensure that lives and livelihoods are not lost. We are looking at six key areas, each of which is critical to keeping the British people safe and society functioning: health, education, fire and rescue, transport, border security and nuclear decommissioning. We do not want to use this legislation, but we must ensure the safety of the British public. During the passage of the Bill, we intend to consult on what an adequate level of coverage looks like in fire, ambulance, and rail services. For the other sectors covered in the Bill, we hope to reach minimum service agreements so that we do not have to use the powers—sectors will be able to come to that position, just as the nurses have done in recent strikes.

    That is a common-sense approach, and we are not the first to follow it. The legislation will bring us in line with other modern European countries such as France, Spain, Italy and Germany, all of which already have these types of rules in place. Even the International Labour Organisation—the guardian of workers’ rights around the world to which the TUC itself subscribes—says that minimum service levels are a proportionate way of balancing the right to strike with the need to protect the wider public. The first job of any Government is to keep the public safe, and unlike other countries, we are not proposing to ban strikes, but we do need to know that unions will be held to account.

    Opposition Members who object to minimum safety levels will need to explain to their constituents why, if they had a heart attack, stroke, or life-threatening illness on a strike day, there were no minimum safety standards in place—[Interruption.] I can see that they do not want to hear it, but they will also need to explain why their leader, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), has already promised—without hearing any of these details—to stand in the way of this legislation and to repeal minimum safety levels, which are in the interests of their constituents, are in place in every other mature European democracy and neighbouring country, and would protect lives and livelihoods in this country. That is the difference between a Conservative Government who take difficult decisions to protect the welfare of our nation, and the Opposition, who too often appear to be in the pay of their union paymasters. I commend this statement to the House.

  • John Stonehouse – 1969 Statement on Resolution of Post Office Dispute

    John Stonehouse – 1969 Statement on Resolution of Post Office Dispute

    The statement made by John Stonehouse, the then Postmaster General, in the House of Commons on 3 February 1969.

    I am glad to take this first opportunity to inform the House of the agreement I reached with the Union of Post Office Workers last Friday, 31st January, on the pay of the overseas telegraphists.

    As I told the House on 20th January, I had offered 5 per cent. from 1st July, 1968, plus a further 2 per cent. from an early date, conditional upon acceptance of certain changes in practice devised to increase productivity, in particular the introduction of what is known as “Received Revision procedure”.

    The agreement is for a 5 per cent. increase from 1st August, 1968; for a further 2 per cent. productivity payment from 1st April, 1969, provided the Received Revision procedure has been fully introduced by then; and for a post hoc revaluation in October, 1969 of the savings achieved, any necessary adjustment of the 2 per cent. being made retrospectively.

    This costing will also take account of any other productivity changes that are agreed and fully introduced in the meantime and for the reactivation of O.T.R.U. to be completed by 30th September, 1969; and for the financial benefits of the reactivation to be considered jointly in October, 1969, any pay adjustments then thought necessary being backdated to 1st July, 1969.

    This is a good agreement, which has the advantage of providing for firmly-based productivity arrangements related to defined changes in procedure by defined and early dates. It has an inbuilt incentive for productivity to be maximised to the benefit of the public, the staff and the Post Office.

    I am delighted that the dispute has been settled in this fair and satisfactory way. I have no doubt that close and cordial working relationships with the union will quickly be restored so that we can go forward together to tackle the many new developments that lie ahead for the Post Office.

    The immediate job is to restore services after the strike, and this is well in hand. Telecommunications services are largely back to normal already. All restrictions on postal services will be removed within the next day or so and services as a whole should be back to normal in a week.

    Mr. Dobson May I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, and offer him congratulations upon achieving what he and the union consider to be a just settlement to this dispute?

    May I ask why there were no negotiations between Monday of last week and Friday, when the union was at all times willing to meet other members of the Government to discuss this dispute and the terms of a settlement, broadly along the lines now reached by my right hon. Friend?

    Finally, will my right hon. Friend tell the House the cost to Post Office revenue of this very difficult and unnecessary dispute?

    Mr. Stonehouse It was not possible until Friday to achieve the negotiations on the productivity arrangements that the Government throughout have regarded as the most important aspect of this affair. Originally, the union, although it changed its tack during the course of the dispute, had asked for a 5 per cent. increase from 1st July last year, with no strings attached. We have insisted—and I announced this to the House some time ago—on a firm productivity agreement for which we were prepared to pay 2 per cent. It was on Friday that we were able to hammer out a very satisfactory settlement along those lines.

    The loss incurred by the Post Office through this dispute cannot yet be made exactly, but I should estimate that on the information we so far have at our disposal it is at least £2 million.

    Mr. Lubbock Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no one will blame him, whom we admire and like, for the failure of communications that has taken place, but that we do utterly deplore the failure of communications between the Post Office and the Cabinet? Could he explain why it is that, although the Post Office explained the issues involved in this dispute very thoroughly at successive Cabinet meetings, the Cabinet was so dense as not to appreciate them until the very last moment?

    Mr. Stonehouse The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to follow him in some of those remarks. Ministers have been united in the way that they have been dealing with this dispute throughout. I can only regret that the union thought it necessary to escalate the dispute in the way it did, bringing in tens of thousands of postal workers who had no direct relationship with the narrow telegraphists’ dispute. That was the most regrettable aspect of the whole affair.

    Mr. Raphael Tuck Is it not a fact that the union originally agreed to a 5 per cent. increase, linked to a productivity agreement relating to received revision and overseas telegraph tape relay unit? Why was the agreement not based upon that, without the necessity for a strike?

    Mr. Stonehouse This has been a complex question, with which I have had to live for the last two or three months. It has involved a number of questions that we have debated in the House. The reactivation of a piece of equipment called O.T.R.U. was one of the aspects about which there was disagreement between the union and ourselves. We have now been able to reach a very satisfactory agreement on the reactivation of this particular type of equipment.

    Mr. R. Carr Is it not time to stop playing with words? Is it not absolutely clear that on the terms now conceded by the Government there need never have been a strike? Ought not the Government to apologise to the country for the mess that they have made?

    Mr. Stonehouse I said on Thursday that I regretted the strike, and I think that the whole House does. Certainly, all my right hon. and hon. Friends, and my colleagues in the Government, regret the strike. It was quite an unnecessary dispute. It is certainly true that the negotiations we had on Friday have reached a very satisfactory conclusion. I believe that this augurs well for the future relationship between the union and the Post Office, and that it would be wise for the House not to attempt to ferret into the details, the confidential details, of those negotiations. The House should direct its attention to constructive ends and the build-up of valuable and useful industrial relations in the Post Office.

    Mr. Heffer Can my right hon. Friend say how much it would have cost to have settled the dispute, as he has now said that the cost of the dispute to the Post Office was about £2 million? Would he not agree that it would have been much wiser, more sensible, intelligent and better for industrial relations to have sat down at a table much earlier and settled the business rather than going through the great travail of this industrial dispute?

    Mr. Stonehouse There is a very big assumption here, that it would have been possible a week ago to have achieved a solution to this dispute on the lines negotiated last Friday. The House will be aware that the union was asking for a 5 per cent. increase, back-dated to last July, without any strings attached. We have negotiated an agreement, backdated to last August, so protecting the six months’ retrospection rule. We also have the union’s full agreement to the introduction of a productivity arrangement that will be of very great value to the Post Office and to those who use our services.

    Mr. Peyton Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that nothing he has said has erased the suspicion that this disagreement and the strike could have been avoided, and that the terms of the settlement were always available? Is he also aware that although there may be some sympathy for him, based very largely on the other suspicion, in this instance there were too many cooks spoiling the broth?

    Mr. Stonehouse I repeat what I said. There is a very big assumption that agreement on the terms negotiated on Friday was available even a few days before. I believe that all the union negotiators involved in this dispute have come to an arrangement which is extremely satisfactory to their members, but they have also accepted something which was perhaps not available on their side even a few days, and certainly a week or so, before, namely, the need for a wage increase tied to a firm productivity agreement. That was the essential point which the Government had put to the union over the past week, and I am delighted that it has now accepted it.