Tory plans for anti-strike law covering NHS and teachers ‘wrong and illegal’, says TUC – as it happened

• Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer have now both made major speeches setting out their pitch to voters for the new year.

Sunak got in first yesterday (report here, and text of the speech here), and Starmer delivered his this morning (report here, and text of the speech here) – although, as he pointed out, Labour booked the venue and scheduled their speech first. Sunak set out five pledges, two of which he promised to achieve this year, and the others he implied would be done by the time of the next election. The promises were widely dismissed as unimpressive, because with the exception of an ambiguously-worded one on small boats, they were all outcomes that are likely to happen anyway. But it sounded like a transactional deal with voters, and Sunak was setting himself as someone who could go into an election campaign with a record of delivery. He said:

Others may talk about change, I will deliver it.

James Johnson, a respected pollster who used to work for Theresa May, said the speech showed that the Tories are responding to the concerns of the public.

But the speech also highlighted the weakness of Sunak’s position. Elections usually end up as a contest between change and more of the same (2019 was an exception – there were two change offers), but in his speech Sunak said very little in defence of the Conservative government’s record since 2010. Sunak said that the NHS was facing “challenges” and that people were looking ahead to 2023 “with apprehension”, but Starmer probably gave a much more realistic assessment of the plight facing the country. He said:

Houses that get burgled countless times yet the police never come. Hospitals putting out messages begging patients to stay away from A&E. Children going to school hungry. And it’s not just the poorest who are struggling.

Millions of families, pensioners, working people – people who’ve always kept their heads above water – are going without decent food and heating. Cutting back on their holidays, their meals out, Christmas presents – all the little things that make life more enjoyable.

While Sunak channelled Tony Blair (a pledge card, a long passage in the speech on the importance of family), Starmer cleverly appropriated Boris Johnson’s 2019 message, saying that Labour’s decentralisation programme would allow local communities to “take back control”. He announced Labour would include a “take back control” bill in its first king’s speech. Leftwingers were disappointed by another passage in the speech saying that Labour could not just rely on big spending to address the nation’s problems, but overall (and partly because, unlike Sunak, he was prepared to deliver an unpalatable message to his party) the speech was easily the more impressive of the two. The PM’s speech was rambling, while Starmer’s was well structured around a coherent argument. And while Sunak was unable to offer any real explanation for why so much with the country was going wrong, Starmer did have an analysis; Westminster politics did not work, he said, because “no similar country puts so much decision-making in the hands of so few people”.

• Ministers have announced anti-strike legislation to enforce “minimum service levels” in six key public services including the NHS and schools as Rishi Sunak scrambles to get a grip on industrial disputes.

• Rishi Sunak faces accusations he has misled the public after it emerged hospitals and councils have not received £300m in emergency funding to free up NHS beds that was first promised four months ago.

• Plans to privatise Channel 4 have been formally abandoned, ending years of threats to the broadcaster that cost the government millions of pounds and were opposed by the vast majority of the media industry.

Keir Starmer has told the BBC that if he were in government, he would want to reach a compromise with the public sector workers on strike. In an interview with Chris Mason, the BBC’s political editor, he said that the government should be negotiating with the unions and that negotiations always ended in a compromise. He would not say exactly what he would offer the striking workers, but he said:

My instinct is that we would go the route of compromise. I’ll tell you what, it’s not just an instinct. Under the last Labour government, we did not have a national strike of nurses. We had nurses with fair pay. That’s the difference you get with the Labour government.

James Cleverly, the foreign secretary, has confirmed that the government wants to negotiate a solution to the Northern Ireland protocol dispute with the EU before the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday agreement at Easter this year. At a press conference with this German opposite number, Annalena Baerbock (see 2.19pm), he said:

There is definitely, definitely a desire in the UK and across the EU to get a resolution on this.

We’re not going to wait for an anniversary. We are working on this with all speed and alacrity as you would expect, and we will continue to work intensively towards a resolution on the issues that we have raised, and indeed looking to address the concerns that the commission has raised as well.

View image in fullscreen

Here is my colleague Peter Walker’s analysis of the difference between what Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer were saying in their new year’s speeches.

The unions sound more open to the idea of taking part in talks with the government on next year’s pay settlement (see 3.40pm), although none of them seem to view it as a significant concession. They want to talk about this year’s pay offer, not next year’s.

Gary Smith, the GMB’s general secretary, said:

We are always ready to discuss our members’ pay but the government is refusing to talk about problems as they exist now, instead they want to kick the can down the road.

There are huge questions over the NHS pay review body, as ministers’ actions have consistently undermined its independence. The process needs real reform and our members need a much stronger commitment than we heard today.

Pat Cullen, the Royal College of Nursing general secretary, said she would accept the invitation to talks, but that they would not solve the current dispute. She said:

We will meet with ministers to see their evidence for the pay process. However, only negotiations on our dispute can avert the planned action this month and I urge the prime minister to show a renewed sense of urgency, grasp the nettle and negotiate with nurses without further delay.

But Mike Clancy, the Prospect general secretary, said the talks would not benefit his members. He explained:

This hollow invitation ignores the fact that a majority of public sector workers are not covered by a pay review body, including nearly all civil servants. We have been calling for years for this to be rectified, something which the government has consistently ignored.

These workers have been some of the most harshly treated over the past decade of real-terms pay cuts, and now the government is signalling its intent to leave them out once again.

Our members have already indicated their willingness to take industrial action and there is nothing in this announcement that will persuade us not to proceed to a formal ballot as planned.

More union leaders have condemned the government’s proposed anti-strike bill.

Mark Serwotka, general secretary of the Public and Commercial Services (PCS) union, said this was an attack on the union movement. He said:

Just when you thought the government could go no lower, ministers say they’re looking to deal with strikes by making them illegal, rather than negotiate with unions.

PCS members are on strike because they cannot afford the cost of living. We view any attempt to outlaw strikes as an attack on the trade union movement and we will resist that at every stage.

Jon Richards, the Unison assistant general secretary, said the government should be building trust with unions, not silencing them. “Unison will be examining these proposals and considering how to respond, including any appropriate legal challenge,” he said.

Gary Smith, the GMB general secretary, said the government was scapegoating unions. He said:

A government that has presided over 13 years of failure in our public services is now seeking to scapegoat the NHS staff and ambulance workers who do so much to care for the people of our country.

And Pat Cullen, the Royal College of Nursing general secretary, said the proposed bill was undemocratic. She said:

Curtailing workers’ freedom to participate in lawful industrial action is always undemocratic and we will look closely at what the government releases next week.

She also said that the NHS needed safe staffing levels not just on strike days, but all the time. She said:

Safe staffing levels that are set in law are what we want to see year-round not just in these extreme circumstances. We’ve long campaigned for governments to be accountable for safe and effective staffing levels in the NHS and social care to prevent one nurse being left with 15, 20 or even 25 sick patients. Legislation exists in other parts of the UK and England is lagging behind.

Angela Rayner, Labour’s deputy leader, has described the government’s proposed anti-strike law (see 3pm) as “insulting”. She said:

These proposals are unworkable and unserious from a dead-end government. It’s insulting to key workers that Rishi Sunak thinks that threatening teachers and nurses with the sack will end strikes.

At every stage the government has sought to collapse talks and throw in last-minute spanners. Now the prime minister is wasting time on shoddy hurdles that even his own transport secretary admits won’t work.

Rayner was referring to Mark Harper, the transport secretary, saying an anti-strike bill won’t be a solution to the current pay dispute.

This morning Keir Starmer said Labour would oppose the anti-strike bill and repeal it if it is law after a Labour election victory. (See 10.43am.)

In his statement Paul Nowak, the TUC general secretary, also criticised the government for offering talks on next year’s pay settlement but not this year’s (see 3.40pm). He said:

The only offer of talks is for next year. But we need to resolve the current disputes and boost the pay of public sector workers now.

The prime minister said yesterday his door is always open – if he’s serious, he should prove it. He should take up my offer to get around the table to improve this year’s pay and end the current disputes.

There is a world of difference between promises of jam tomorrow with technical discussions about pay review bodies, and proper negotiations on pay in the here and now.

Paul Nowak, the new general secretary, has attacked the government’s proposed anti-strike law (see 3pm) as “wrong, unworkable, and almost certainly illegal”. In a statement he said:

This is an attack on the right to strike. It’s an attack on working people. And it’s an attack on one of our longstanding British liberties.

It means that when workers democratically vote to strike, they can be forced to work and sacked if they don’t. That’s wrong, unworkable, and almost certainly illegal.

The announcement offers nothing more to help with this year’s pay and the cost of living crisis.

As mentioned already (see 3pm), the government has combined its announcement of a new anti-strike law with an offer to open talks with public sector trade unions on pay deals for next year. It is a carrot and stick approach, and the hardline announcement about legislation provides cover for what amounts to at least a change of tone in the government’s stance on pay.

Ministers have repeatedly said they are not willing to increase the pay offers for 2022-23 that are already on the table, and which have provoked strikes in multiple sectors. But the government says it will open direct talks with unions on pay for 2023-24, before evidence is submitted to the pay review bodies. In its news release, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy says:

The government will invite trade unions to meet for honest, constructive conversations about what is fair and affordable in public sector pay settlements for 2023-24, as part of a reasonable approach to avoiding prolonged industrial action.

Ministers are reaching out to unions to invite them to sit down and discuss the evidence that the government will be submitting to the pay review bodies – and hopes that unions will also share their evidence.

If the offer is accepted, discussions will take place between government departments and unions in the coming weeks on issues including pay evidence, workload and conditions in the public sector. These discussions will help ensure the evidence submitted to the pay review bodies is as considered and informed as possible, including reflecting areas of common ground.

The government also says it is calling on the unions to call off their ongoing strikes while the new talks take place.

The government has just published details of its proposed anti-strike legislation. It has come out in the form of a press release from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy but, in a sign perhaps that that the government is nervous about being seen as being too anti-union, the press release is headlined: “Government invites unions to return to the table and call off strikes” and the information about the proposed bill is stuck near the bottom, underneath an announcement about how ministers want “constructive” talks about a “fair and affordable” pay settlement for 2023-34 (but not about the 2022-23 pay settlement, which is what the strikes are about).

This is what the press release says about the proposed bill.

• A bill will be introduced in parliament “in the coming weeks” to ensure “a basic level of service in some of our most crucial sectors when industrial action takes place”. This is routinely called minimum service level (MSL) legislation, although the press release describes these as “minimum safety levels” in many places.

• The new rules will definitely will cover fire, ambulance and rail services. The department says:

Minimum safety levels will be set for fire, ambulance and rail services and the government will consult on the adequate level of coverage for these sectors, recognising that disruption to blue light services puts lives at immediate risk.

• The legislation will also cover health, education and other services – although in these sectors the government will only impose minimum service levels if attempts to reach voluntary agreements with unions fail. The department says:

For the other sectors covered in the bill, which includes health services, education, nuclear decommissioning, other transport services and border security, the government expects to continue to reach voluntary agreements, and would only look to consult on minimum safety levels should these voluntary positions not be agreed.

• The government will consult on what minimum service levels should be, but they will involve “maintaining core service provision in emergency services and ensuring key transport, travel and trade routes don’t completely shut down on strike days”.

• Unions will risk having to pay damages if they fail to comply. The department says:

Trade unions will be bound to follow this legislation and will risk the employer bringing an injunction to prevent the strike from taking place or seeking damages afterwards if they do not comply with their obligations.

• The government will also also increase the damages a court can award for unlawful strike action.

• The law will apply to Great Britain.

• The department claims the new law is in line with what happens in other countries. The department says:

Others countries across Europe and wider world have similar laws in place. Countries including Spain, Italy and France have statutory MSLs in place. The Netherlands, Germany, Spain and France all balance the right to strike with ensuring continuity of public services.

The International Labour Organisation recognises MSLs as a sensible solution to protect the public from serious consequences of strikes. The UK signed the ILO’s Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work in 1998. The ILO itself accepts limitations on strikes is permissible where life is endangered or other serious consequences for the public.

When it comes to ‘blue lights’ services, Canada, Australia and parts of the USA have total bans on strikes. We are not going as far as some countries, who ban outright strikes in ambulance and fire service, as with police.

The SNP claims that Keir Starmer’s speech shows the UK faces a choice between “two Tory prime ministers” at the next election. In a statement issued by the party, referring in particular to what Starmer said about the limits of big spending and his desire to implement “take back control” policies, the SNP’s deputy leader, Keith Brown, said:

Today’s intervention from Keir Starmer promised a decade of renewal but the reality is another decade of crippling austerity for Scotland from Westminster.

The leader of the official opposition doesn’t only embrace the wrecking ball that is Brexit – he’s now stealing their campaign slogans. Meanwhile, Brexit is hammering Scotland’s economy in the midst of the deepest cost of living crisis in decades.

Labour are now carbon-copy Tories on Brexit, the co-conspirators to hush up the true cost of Brexit. Today’s speech only confirms that the next general election is a choice between two Tory prime ministers.

Brown said that in his speech Starmer did acknowledge why so many people in Scotland voted for independence in 2014. (See 11.54am.) But he went on:

Yet [Starmer] and his party continue to deny the democratic mandate for a fresh vote on independence.

That’s exactly why Scotland needs the full powers of independence – to guarantee we get the governments we vote for every time and to deliver on our priorities and our values, which clearly differ from those at Westminster.

View image in fullscreen