Hansard

I am not going to take another intervention at this stage. I have taken two, and I need to make some progress.

The Government has to strike an appropriate balance between the ability to strike and protecting lives and livelihoods. Even before the legislation was put in place, we had protections relating to the armed services and the police, for example, to protect individuals from strikes. The legislation extends those categories to ensure protection of the public.

There is nothing unusual about that in the wider European context. Most countries in Europe have restrictions on strike action, including the provision of minimum service levels. It is true that the list of professions covered differs from country to country, but I commend to members the research done by the House of Commons library that looks, country by country, at the restrictions that are put in place. Some countries, such as Portugal and Greece, have explicit frameworks set out in statute for sectors in which minimum services must be provided. In other countries—Germany and the Netherlands, for example—there are no explicit statutory minimum service laws, but court rulings have allowed restrictions to be imposed in practice for certain services, where the right to strike is balanced against competing public interests. In France, there are elements of both statutory and non-statutory restrictions. It is only in very few European countries—Poland and Austria, for example—that there are no minimum service requirements in law at all. However, in Poland, there is still an extensive list of professions that are prohibited from striking altogether.

Across Europe, the breadth and extent of minimum service levels vary considerably. Finland and Croatia draw restrictions narrowly around the protection of lives, public safety and/or property that would otherwise be in danger. Other countries state that the competing requirement is a broader public interest test, while they need to provide services essential to the community, which can include healthcare, emergency services, education, transport, energy and telecommunications. Different European countries take different approaches to how those laws will work in practice. In Romania and Greece, for example, a flat rate of one third of regular service is set across all restricted services, but most countries determine the actual maintenance service levels on a case-by-case basis.

The legislation simply brings the United Kingdom into line with the norm across most European countries. Given that the Scottish Government’s stated intent is to align itself with the rest of the European Union, I am somewhat surprised that it is resisting the legislation, which simply brings the UK into line with the practice in most European countries.

As I have said before, even if the Scottish Government objects to the legislation, it does not have to implement those minimum service levels. It will be for the Scottish ministers to determine whether will do so in relation to devolved areas. As we have heard, the Scottish Government has no intention of doing so.

What we have here is the proverbial storm in a teacup. Whatever one’s view on the need for minimum service levels and whether they are appropriate, they will apply in Scotland only if the Scottish ministers decide to implement them. Therefore, this whole debate is just about posturing and constitutional grievance from the Scottish National Party, which is once again trying to stir up a fight with Westminster, when there are far more important things that it could be spending its time on.

I am very pleased to move the amendment in my name. I move amendment S6M-11652.1, to leave out from second “the” to end and insert:

“that the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 strikes an appropriate balance between the ability to strike and the protection of lives and livelihoods; notes that most European countries have provisions in place for minimum service levels during certain public service strikes; recognises that public service employees have a right to strike, and that an element of disruption is inherent to any strike, but believes that the wider public expect a minimum level of service during industrial action; notes that the legislation currently only applies in Scotland to the reserved areas of border security, HM Passport Office and nuclear decommissioning, and does not impact on devolved responsibilities in health, transport, fire and rescue and education, considering that the Scottish Government has stated that it will not mandate minimum service levels under the legislation during a potential strike, and calls on the Scottish Government to use the powers that it has been given under the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 to ensure that people in Scotland have the same protections for devolved public services in the event of a strike that those elsewhere in the UK benefit from.”