NHS workers and teachers to be included in new anti-strikes legislation – UK politics live | Politics

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.

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”.

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.

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.

Patrick Wintour

Disputes over implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol have become the achilles heel of the EU’s relations with the UK, Annalena Baerbock, the German foreign minister said, before talks with the UK foreign secretary, James Cleverly, in London today.

She said:

It is key that we find a responsible and pragmatic solution for Northern Ireland, on the basis of existing agreements. It is the only way we will realise the full potential of our partnership.

As we engage in our new relationship, we are under an obligation to get the very best results for those who are directly affected. While we cannot turn back the clock, we can decide to step forward into a good common future.

Baerbock’s remarks show there is a willingness in Europe to test whether the new government of Rishi Sunak is willing to look for a solution to the dispute that has blighted relations with the EU, and to a lesser extent the US, ever since Brexit

They also underline how the post-Brexit trade deal’s impact in Northern Ireland is holding back progress on other issues, including the Erasmus programme, and wider political cooperation.

Germany is also eager to improve bilateral relations with the UK as it sees daily contact between Germany and the UK in rapid decline, symbolised by the rapid decline in German language teaching in schools.

Baerbock would not be involved in the detailed future talks on the protocol which would be conducted by the EU Commission, but Germany can certainly set the tone. Relations between Baerbock, a strong supporter of arming Ukraine, and the UK government are broadly good even though the German Green’s ethical foreign policy may seem a long way from that of the UK Conservative party.

Sharon Graham, the Unite general secretary, has also taken a swipe at Keir Starmer today. Unite has in the past been Labour’s biggest financial backer, and in a statement released after Starmer’s speech was delivered Graham said she wanted an assurance that Labour would not return to austerity. She said:

Right now our NHS is being deliberately run down and workers and communities are being lined up for another round of austerity.

So I want to hear Labour make it abundantly clear that the choices it will make will not lead to austerity – that we will not be getting some new buzz word that amounts to continued cuts to services and pay.

They cannot afford to tinker around the edges. We are a wealthy country and the money is there. We now need a government that is committed to making different choices.

Labour is not arguing for austerity and has repeatedly said that the cuts introduced by the Conservatives after 2010 went too far. But there is no agreed definition of what level of public spending amounts to austerity, and in his speech this morning Starmer said the nation’s problems could not just be solved by big spending. (See 11.54am.)

Unite and Unison, Britain’s two biggest unions, have both criticised the government for wanting to press ahead with anti-strike laws.

Responding to reports that a government announcement on this will come later today (see 8.48am), Sharon Graham, the Unite general secretary, said:

Yet again, Rishi Sunak abdicates his responsibility as a leader.

Instead of silly posturing and game playing, he should step up to the plate, act as a leader and start negotiating to resolve the crises his government has created.

The game is up – everyday people can see through the Tories’ web of lies. They can see that this government is not interested in ensuring that workers and communities get their fair share. This is a government for the rich and powerful.

And Sara Gorton, Unison’s head of health, said:

The public and health staff would welcome minimum staffing levels in the NHS every day of the week. That way, people wouldn’t be lying in agony on A&E floors or dying in the backs of ambulances.

But limiting legal staffing levels to strike days and threatening to sack or fine health workers when there are record vacancies in the NHS show proper patient care isn’t what ministers want.

dHere are the main points from Keir Starmer’s speech and Q&A.

We will spread control out of Westminster. Devolve new powers over employment support, transport, energy, climate change, housing, culture, childcare provision and how councils run their finances.

And we’ll give communities a new right to request powers which go beyond this.

All this will be in a new “take back control” bill – a centrepiece of our first king’s speech. A bill that will deliver on the demand for a new Britain. A new approach to politics and democracy. A new approach to growth and our economy.

He also confirmed that he was deliberately adopting the “take back control” Brexit slogan because the desire for more local control was one aspect of the leave campaign in 2016, and of the yes campaign for Scottish independence in 2014, that he felt was justified. He explained:

I go back to Brexit. Yes, a whole host of issues were on that ballot paper. But as I went around the country, campaigning for remain, I couldn’t disagree with the basic case so many leave voters made to me.

People who wanted public services they could rely on. High streets they could be proud of. Opportunities for the next generation. And all of this in their town or city.

It was the same in the Scottish referendum in 2014 – many of those who voted ‘yes’ did so for similar reasons. And it’s not an unreasonable demand.

It’s not unreasonable for us to recognise the desire for communities to stand on their own feet. It’s what take back control meant. The control people want is control over their lives and their community.

So we will embrace the take back control message. But we’ll turn it from a slogan to a solution. From a catchphrase into change. We will spread control out of Westminster. Devolve new powers over employment support, transport, energy, climate change, housing, culture, childcare provision and how councils run their finances.

Starmer made this “take back control” argument last month, when he published a report setting out more details of Labour’s plans to decentralise power out of Westminster. But he did not announce then that there would be legislation for this in the first king’s speech, and media coverage of the December announced focused on his plans to abolish the House of Lords.

None of this should be taken as code for Labour getting its big government chequebook out. Of course investment is required – I can see the damage the Tories have done to our public services as plainly as anyone else.

But we won’t be able to spend our way out of their mess – it’s not as simple as that.

As the BBC’s Chris Mason reports, Starmer omitted a word included in the text released overnight in this passage that implied he thought previous Labour government’s spent too much. See 11.12am.

• Starmer refused to confirm that he remains committed to abolishing tuition fees. In its 2019 manifesto Labour said it was committed to abolishing tuition fees, and Starmer said he supported this when he stood for the Labour leadership. But asked if he would implement this policy, he replied:

University tuition fees are not working well, they burden young people going forward. Obviously we have got a number of propositions in relation to those fees that we will put forward as we go into the election.

But I have to be honest about it; the damage that has been done to our economy means that we are going to have to, and we know we will, cost everything as we go into that election, and we will do that with discipline, as we have done so far.

I am not going to spell out our manifesto in advance … but I can say that every commitment we make will be absolutely fully funded. That is a cast-iron guarantee as we go into that election.

Frankly, the government is all over the show on this. Every day there is a different briefing as to whether there is going to be legislation, what it is going to be and when it is going to come.

I think there is a reason for that and that is because I don’t think this legislation is going to work. I am pretty sure they have had an assessment that tells them that it is likely to make a bad situation worse.

Obviously we will look at what they bring forward, but if it is further restrictions then we would repeal it and the reason for that is I do not think that legislation is the way that you bring an end to industrial disputes.

I thought his promises were weak and low ambition. Inflation is the biggest example of that. So you get inflation down to a rate lower than is already predicted, it is not a big promise to the British public.

The idea that after 13 years of failure you can come along in the 13th year and say: ‘I have got five new promises please give us one more chance’, I just feel is so far removed from reality.

Yes, there are good people of course – many MPs share my determination to tackle Britain’s problems quickly. But as a system – it doesn’t work.

You know, sometimes I hear talk about a “huge day in Westminster”, but all that’s happened is someone has passionately described a problem, and then that’s it.

Nothing has changed, but the circus moves on. Rinse and repeat. Honestly – you can’t overstate how much a short-term mindset dominates Westminster. And from there, how it infects all the institutions which try and fail to run Britain from the centre.

I call it ‘sticking plaster politics’. And in a kind of last minute frenzy, it sometimes delivers relief. But the long-term cure – that always eludes us. And it’s at the heart of all the problems we see across our country right now.

I came to politics late in my career. I’ve run large organisations, institutions that had to serve our country, and I’ve changed them all – including the Labour party. That’s why I came into politics eight years ago. A new way to serve. A new way to get things done. More opportunities to change our country for the better.

Yesterday it emerged, from a leaked letter, that Michelle Donelan, the culture secretary, wanted to drop plans to privatise Channel 4. This morning the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has confirmed that privatisation will not go ahead. In a press release it says:

Michelle Donelan has decided not to privatise Channel 4 after reviewing the business case for its sale. The broadcaster will remain in public ownership but with greater commercial flexibility, increased investment in skills and jobs across the UK as well as new production arrangements to support its long-term sustainability and growth.

The government, following discussions with Channel 4 and the independent production sector, have confirmed an ambitious package of measures as an alternative to a sale. This includes reforms via the media bill, which will eventually allow Channel 4 to make and own some of its content and a new statutory duty on its board members to protect the broadcaster’s long-term financial sustainability. Channel 4 has also committed to increasing roles outside London and providing more opportunities for people from across the UK to gain experience in the sector as part of this package.

Political journalists and commentators are more positive about Keir Starmer’s speech than they were about Rishi Sunak’s yesterday. Here is what some of them are saying.

From Sky’s Beth Rigby

From the Times’s Henry Zeffman

From my colleague Peter Walker

From LBC’s Sangita Myska

From the writer and broadcaster Steve Richards

From my colleague Rafael Behr

From ITV’s Paul Brand (commenting on the fact that Starmer was asked, by a Telegraph journalist, what the difference was between Labour and the Tories)

From Tom Harwood from GB News