Commons holds firm in stand-off with Lords over strikes law
Register for free to read more of the latest local news. It's easy and will only take a moment.
The Government accused the Lords of attempting to delay the implementation of minimum service levels for key services as it rejected calls for further consultation and parliamentary oversight.
MPs rejected a Lords amendment to the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill by 302 to 205, majority 97, which would have forced the Government to undertake a consultation, produce an impact assessment and provide for parliamentary oversight before regulations for specific sectors could be made.
The Bill will return to the House of Lords, continuing the parliamentary tussle known as ping-pong.
Labour shadow business minister Justin Madders said the Lords amendment was asking the Government to undertake “genuine consultation” before implementing minimum service regulations.
He told the Commons: “Consultation… so far has been limited to only half of the areas that the Bill legislates for. And as far as they go, they don’t really deal with the fundamental questions.
“By rejecting this amendment, the Government are in effect saying one of two things: either they don’t know whether they break international law, or they do know and they just don’t care.”
Business and trade minister Kevin Hollinrake said: “This House has been asked these questions before and twice this House has said no with an overwhelming majority.”
He said the Bill already requires the Government to undertake consultations and said they have already been undertaken for a number of service areas.
He said impact assessments were published and “final impact assessments” will be published alongside the regulations which will be brought forward for approval in Parliament “in due course”.
He added: “The Bill is compatible with the UK’s international obligations.”
He also told MPs: “The real impact… would be to delay the implementation of minimum service levels given the additional and lengthy consultation and parliamentary requirements which we heavily suspect is its purpose.
“Unnecessary delays to protecting the lives and livelihoods of those we have been elected to represent cannot be justified.”
