Latest news with #Strikes(MinimumServiceLevels)Act
North Wales Chronicle
2 days ago
- Politics
- North Wales Chronicle
Tearing up strikes law branded ‘recklessness' by Government opponents
In moving to scrap the legislation, introduced by the previous Tory administration, the Government argued it was ineffective, having failed to prevent a single day of industrial action while in force. The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act became law back in July 2023 in the face of fierce opposition. The controversial move allowed ministers to impose minimum levels of service during industrial action by ambulance staff, firefighters, railway workers and those in other sectors deemed essential. It was brought in against a backdrop of disruptive strikes in the NHS and on the railway. Labour promised at the time to repeal the legislation if it got into office. Provisions contained in the Employment Rights Bill, currently going through the House of Lords, will deliver on this pledge. The Conservative opposition frontbench has called for a review to assess the impact on the emergency services of ripping up the law. Describing it as 'a public protection measure', Tory shadow business minister Lord Sharpe of Epsom said: 'The truth is that this law has teeth, it provides leverage, and it establishes a legal baseline. 'The Government want to remove it not because it is useless but because it places limits on how far certain interests can allow disruption to stretch.' He added: 'What is the Government's alternative? If we strip away the only existing mechanism for maintaining safe service levels during strikes, what replaces it? Nothing in the Bill offers an equivalent safeguard.' Lord Sharpe went on: 'We are about to discard the only statutory mechanism for ensuring minimum service level provision during strikes… without evidence, without a plan and without a single word of accountability to Parliament. That is not governance; it is recklessness.' But former general secretary of the Trades Union Congress (TUC) and Labour peer Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway pointed out the legislation had not been used. She said: 'That was because the Act was so widely regarded as unfair and unworkable and, in addition, that it would put fuel on the fire of difficult industrial disputes when all decent people wanted to resolve those disputes. 'Finally, it ignored the fact that life-and-limb voluntary agreements are in place in the industries and sectors where safety is genuinely at stake.' Conservative peer Baroness Noakes said: 'I accept that those in the party opposite, throughout the passage of that Bill, registered their strong opposition to it. 'So I understand that, in power, they seek to expunge it from the statute book. However, that is a grave mistake that ignores the needs of ordinary citizens and places unions above the needs of ordinary citizens.' Fellow Conservative peer Baroness Lawlor said repealing the legislation would appear to many 'as an irresponsible act of Government'. Responding, Labour minister Lord Leong said scrapping the strikes law had been an election manifesto commitment. He told peers: 'It has not prevented a single day of industrial action but has contributed to industrial unrest. 'Before the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, most industrial action was consulted on, and voluntary agreements were put in place for minimum service levels in the interests of security. The system worked perfectly, so I do not see why this Act should be in place.' In reply, Lord Sharpe said: 'All we have done is ask for the Government to pause and consider the real-world consequences of repealing a law that was designed to protect public safety during times of industrial action.' He added: 'There is no analysis of outcomes, no tracking of safety impacts, no consultation findings and no plan for what replaces the protections that they are so eager to tear down. In short, there is no case, just conviction without content.'
Powys County Times
2 days ago
- Politics
- Powys County Times
Tearing up strikes law branded ‘recklessness' by Government opponents
Ditching a strikes law meant to curb the impact of walkouts on key services is 'recklessness', Tory critics have warned at Westminster. In moving to scrap the legislation, introduced by the previous Tory administration, the Government argued it was ineffective, having failed to prevent a single day of industrial action while in force. The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act became law back in July 2023 in the face of fierce opposition. The controversial move allowed ministers to impose minimum levels of service during industrial action by ambulance staff, firefighters, railway workers and those in other sectors deemed essential. It was brought in against a backdrop of disruptive strikes in the NHS and on the railway. Labour promised at the time to repeal the legislation if it got into office. Provisions contained in the Employment Rights Bill, currently going through the House of Lords, will deliver on this pledge. The Conservative opposition frontbench has called for a review to assess the impact on the emergency services of ripping up the law. Describing it as 'a public protection measure', Tory shadow business minister Lord Sharpe of Epsom said: 'The truth is that this law has teeth, it provides leverage, and it establishes a legal baseline. 'The Government want to remove it not because it is useless but because it places limits on how far certain interests can allow disruption to stretch.' He added: 'What is the Government's alternative? If we strip away the only existing mechanism for maintaining safe service levels during strikes, what replaces it? Nothing in the Bill offers an equivalent safeguard.' Lord Sharpe went on: 'We are about to discard the only statutory mechanism for ensuring minimum service level provision during strikes… without evidence, without a plan and without a single word of accountability to Parliament. That is not governance; it is recklessness.' But former general secretary of the Trades Union Congress (TUC) and Labour peer Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway pointed out the legislation had not been used. She said: 'That was because the Act was so widely regarded as unfair and unworkable and, in addition, that it would put fuel on the fire of difficult industrial disputes when all decent people wanted to resolve those disputes. 'Finally, it ignored the fact that life-and-limb voluntary agreements are in place in the industries and sectors where safety is genuinely at stake.' Conservative peer Baroness Noakes said: 'I accept that those in the party opposite, throughout the passage of that Bill, registered their strong opposition to it. 'So I understand that, in power, they seek to expunge it from the statute book. However, that is a grave mistake that ignores the needs of ordinary citizens and places unions above the needs of ordinary citizens.' Fellow Conservative peer Baroness Lawlor said repealing the legislation would appear to many 'as an irresponsible act of Government'. Responding, Labour minister Lord Leong said scrapping the strikes law had been an election manifesto commitment. He told peers: 'It has not prevented a single day of industrial action but has contributed to industrial unrest. 'Before the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, most industrial action was consulted on, and voluntary agreements were put in place for minimum service levels in the interests of security. The system worked perfectly, so I do not see why this Act should be in place.' In reply, Lord Sharpe said: 'All we have done is ask for the Government to pause and consider the real-world consequences of repealing a law that was designed to protect public safety during times of industrial action.' He added: 'There is no analysis of outcomes, no tracking of safety impacts, no consultation findings and no plan for what replaces the protections that they are so eager to tear down. In short, there is no case, just conviction without content.'
South Wales Argus
2 days ago
- Politics
- South Wales Argus
Tearing up strikes law branded ‘recklessness' by Government opponents
In moving to scrap the legislation, introduced by the previous Tory administration, the Government argued it was ineffective, having failed to prevent a single day of industrial action while in force. The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act became law back in July 2023 in the face of fierce opposition. The controversial move allowed ministers to impose minimum levels of service during industrial action by ambulance staff, firefighters, railway workers and those in other sectors deemed essential. It was brought in against a backdrop of disruptive strikes in the NHS and on the railway. Labour promised at the time to repeal the legislation if it got into office. Provisions contained in the Employment Rights Bill, currently going through the House of Lords, will deliver on this pledge. The Conservative opposition frontbench has called for a review to assess the impact on the emergency services of ripping up the law. Describing it as 'a public protection measure', Tory shadow business minister Lord Sharpe of Epsom said: 'The truth is that this law has teeth, it provides leverage, and it establishes a legal baseline. 'The Government want to remove it not because it is useless but because it places limits on how far certain interests can allow disruption to stretch.' He added: 'What is the Government's alternative? If we strip away the only existing mechanism for maintaining safe service levels during strikes, what replaces it? Nothing in the Bill offers an equivalent safeguard.' Lord Sharpe went on: 'We are about to discard the only statutory mechanism for ensuring minimum service level provision during strikes… without evidence, without a plan and without a single word of accountability to Parliament. That is not governance; it is recklessness.' But former general secretary of the Trades Union Congress (TUC) and Labour peer Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway pointed out the legislation had not been used. She said: 'That was because the Act was so widely regarded as unfair and unworkable and, in addition, that it would put fuel on the fire of difficult industrial disputes when all decent people wanted to resolve those disputes. 'Finally, it ignored the fact that life-and-limb voluntary agreements are in place in the industries and sectors where safety is genuinely at stake.' Conservative peer Baroness Noakes said: 'I accept that those in the party opposite, throughout the passage of that Bill, registered their strong opposition to it. 'So I understand that, in power, they seek to expunge it from the statute book. However, that is a grave mistake that ignores the needs of ordinary citizens and places unions above the needs of ordinary citizens.' Fellow Conservative peer Baroness Lawlor said repealing the legislation would appear to many 'as an irresponsible act of Government'. Responding, Labour minister Lord Leong said scrapping the strikes law had been an election manifesto commitment. He told peers: 'It has not prevented a single day of industrial action but has contributed to industrial unrest. 'Before the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, most industrial action was consulted on, and voluntary agreements were put in place for minimum service levels in the interests of security. The system worked perfectly, so I do not see why this Act should be in place.' In reply, Lord Sharpe said: 'All we have done is ask for the Government to pause and consider the real-world consequences of repealing a law that was designed to protect public safety during times of industrial action.' He added: 'There is no analysis of outcomes, no tracking of safety impacts, no consultation findings and no plan for what replaces the protections that they are so eager to tear down. In short, there is no case, just conviction without content.'
Leader Live
2 days ago
- Politics
- Leader Live
Tearing up strikes law branded ‘recklessness' by Government opponents
In moving to scrap the legislation, introduced by the previous Tory administration, the Government argued it was ineffective, having failed to prevent a single day of industrial action while in force. The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act became law back in July 2023 in the face of fierce opposition. The controversial move allowed ministers to impose minimum levels of service during industrial action by ambulance staff, firefighters, railway workers and those in other sectors deemed essential. It was brought in against a backdrop of disruptive strikes in the NHS and on the railway. Labour promised at the time to repeal the legislation if it got into office. Provisions contained in the Employment Rights Bill, currently going through the House of Lords, will deliver on this pledge. The Conservative opposition frontbench has called for a review to assess the impact on the emergency services of ripping up the law. Describing it as 'a public protection measure', Tory shadow business minister Lord Sharpe of Epsom said: 'The truth is that this law has teeth, it provides leverage, and it establishes a legal baseline. 'The Government want to remove it not because it is useless but because it places limits on how far certain interests can allow disruption to stretch.' He added: 'What is the Government's alternative? If we strip away the only existing mechanism for maintaining safe service levels during strikes, what replaces it? Nothing in the Bill offers an equivalent safeguard.' Lord Sharpe went on: 'We are about to discard the only statutory mechanism for ensuring minimum service level provision during strikes… without evidence, without a plan and without a single word of accountability to Parliament. That is not governance; it is recklessness.' But former general secretary of the Trades Union Congress (TUC) and Labour peer Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway pointed out the legislation had not been used. She said: 'That was because the Act was so widely regarded as unfair and unworkable and, in addition, that it would put fuel on the fire of difficult industrial disputes when all decent people wanted to resolve those disputes. 'Finally, it ignored the fact that life-and-limb voluntary agreements are in place in the industries and sectors where safety is genuinely at stake.' Conservative peer Baroness Noakes said: 'I accept that those in the party opposite, throughout the passage of that Bill, registered their strong opposition to it. 'So I understand that, in power, they seek to expunge it from the statute book. However, that is a grave mistake that ignores the needs of ordinary citizens and places unions above the needs of ordinary citizens.' Fellow Conservative peer Baroness Lawlor said repealing the legislation would appear to many 'as an irresponsible act of Government'. Responding, Labour minister Lord Leong said scrapping the strikes law had been an election manifesto commitment. He told peers: 'It has not prevented a single day of industrial action but has contributed to industrial unrest. 'Before the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, most industrial action was consulted on, and voluntary agreements were put in place for minimum service levels in the interests of security. The system worked perfectly, so I do not see why this Act should be in place.' In reply, Lord Sharpe said: 'All we have done is ask for the Government to pause and consider the real-world consequences of repealing a law that was designed to protect public safety during times of industrial action.' He added: 'There is no analysis of outcomes, no tracking of safety impacts, no consultation findings and no plan for what replaces the protections that they are so eager to tear down. In short, there is no case, just conviction without content.'
Rhyl Journal
2 days ago
- Politics
- Rhyl Journal
Tearing up strikes law branded ‘recklessness' by Government opponents
In moving to scrap the legislation, introduced by the previous Tory administration, the Government argued it was ineffective, having failed to prevent a single day of industrial action while in force. The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act became law back in July 2023 in the face of fierce opposition. The controversial move allowed ministers to impose minimum levels of service during industrial action by ambulance staff, firefighters, railway workers and those in other sectors deemed essential. It was brought in against a backdrop of disruptive strikes in the NHS and on the railway. Labour promised at the time to repeal the legislation if it got into office. Provisions contained in the Employment Rights Bill, currently going through the House of Lords, will deliver on this pledge. The Conservative opposition frontbench has called for a review to assess the impact on the emergency services of ripping up the law. Describing it as 'a public protection measure', Tory shadow business minister Lord Sharpe of Epsom said: 'The truth is that this law has teeth, it provides leverage, and it establishes a legal baseline. 'The Government want to remove it not because it is useless but because it places limits on how far certain interests can allow disruption to stretch.' He added: 'What is the Government's alternative? If we strip away the only existing mechanism for maintaining safe service levels during strikes, what replaces it? Nothing in the Bill offers an equivalent safeguard.' Lord Sharpe went on: 'We are about to discard the only statutory mechanism for ensuring minimum service level provision during strikes… without evidence, without a plan and without a single word of accountability to Parliament. That is not governance; it is recklessness.' But former general secretary of the Trades Union Congress (TUC) and Labour peer Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway pointed out the legislation had not been used. She said: 'That was because the Act was so widely regarded as unfair and unworkable and, in addition, that it would put fuel on the fire of difficult industrial disputes when all decent people wanted to resolve those disputes. 'Finally, it ignored the fact that life-and-limb voluntary agreements are in place in the industries and sectors where safety is genuinely at stake.' Conservative peer Baroness Noakes said: 'I accept that those in the party opposite, throughout the passage of that Bill, registered their strong opposition to it. 'So I understand that, in power, they seek to expunge it from the statute book. However, that is a grave mistake that ignores the needs of ordinary citizens and places unions above the needs of ordinary citizens.' Fellow Conservative peer Baroness Lawlor said repealing the legislation would appear to many 'as an irresponsible act of Government'. Responding, Labour minister Lord Leong said scrapping the strikes law had been an election manifesto commitment. He told peers: 'It has not prevented a single day of industrial action but has contributed to industrial unrest. 'Before the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, most industrial action was consulted on, and voluntary agreements were put in place for minimum service levels in the interests of security. The system worked perfectly, so I do not see why this Act should be in place.' In reply, Lord Sharpe said: 'All we have done is ask for the Government to pause and consider the real-world consequences of repealing a law that was designed to protect public safety during times of industrial action.' He added: 'There is no analysis of outcomes, no tracking of safety impacts, no consultation findings and no plan for what replaces the protections that they are so eager to tear down. In short, there is no case, just conviction without content.'
