Grahame Morris
MP for Easington · Labour · United Kingdom
“I am grateful for the Minister’s engagement, but can I point out a practical problem in the context of seafarers? With the vast majority of the merchant fleet not flagged with GB owners, the problem—including on the ferries and so on that are working out of British ports for more than 120 days a year—is that there is a relatively small nu…”
“Member for Bromsgrove is new to the House, so he may not be aware of this—that the chief exec of P&O Ferries admitted publicly, to a joint sitting of the Transport Committee and the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, that he was fully aware that P&O Ferries were breaking the law in three areas, not just on consultation, a…”
“I do not have a formal speech, but I want to make a couple of points about context and put a particular question to the Minister, if that is okay.”
“I have been involved in discussions, lobbying of Ministers, members of my party and shadow Ministers to ensure that the legislation affords a degree of protection to UK-based seafarers.”
“I fully understand the difficulties and the complexities of international law, but that cannot be a get-out for P&O Ferries, Irish Ferries or any other commercial entity to simply walk away from their legal responsibilities in respect of employment protections.”
“The hon. Gentleman hits the nail on the head—that is perfectly put. I believe there is cross-party consensus that this is the way forward. Over the last 16 years that I have been a Member, along with the hon.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Grahame Morris, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 12.
“Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting this question on a matter of some urgency. I thank the Minister for his response, and I must impress upon him and the House that the Secretary of State must expedite the contract bidding process for updating existing UK trains to ensure the survival of the UK-based train manufacturing industry. Without immediate plans to allow companies to bid for new contracts, make no mistake, thousands of skilled jobs in the UK will go. The urgency stems from the crucial role of the Alstom factory in Derby. It is the UK’s only end-to-end, design, build and test train manufacturing facility, making it integral to the UK’s rail manufacturing industries. Some 3,000 people currently work directly at Alstom, and 15,000 jobs in the supply chain rely on the factory’s continued production.”
“May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to an emerging problem? The Department for Work and Pensions requires an estimated 5,000 net increase in staff every quarter if it is to undertake the increased workload arising from recent Government announcements, including some very recent ones. Yet the shocking new dossier published this week by the Public and Commercial Services Union warns that the target is nowhere near being met. Staff morale is at rock bottom due to excessive workloads, real-terms pay cuts and new restrictions on home working. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on the staffing crisis in the DWP, and will she urge her ministerial colleagues to meet the PCS trade union as a matter of urgency to try to find a way forward?”
“Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) said from the Front Bench, that the BBC is the biggest commissioner of the creative industries in the UK, will the Minister, in her review of the funding model, please ensure that the BBC has enough funding to maintain the highest quality in commissioning, production and broadcasting?”
“I wish to declare that I, too, am an officer of the NUJ parliamentary group—in fact, I am its co-chair. May I point out to the Minister the damaging impact of dramatic cuts already being implemented by the BBC management, including to the valued BBC local radio services, which we have discussed in this House on several occasions, to highly regarded investigative journalist jobs, most notably and recently on “Newsnight”, and to local news output? Given that inflation has been substantially higher than expected during the two-year licence fee freeze and given, as my hon.”
“Members; we have had some terrible weather in the north-east, and as the snow thawed Northumbrian Water was polluting our seas at three sewage overflows in my constituency. That is just one of 164 incidents of Northumbrian Water dumping raw sewage in my constituency.”
“I was interested by the Minister’s comments about personal injury, because water pollution hit the headlines recently when we had the ironman world triathlon championship series at Sunderland. There are three elements to the event, cycling, running and swimming, and after the swimming element, 88 of the athletes fell ill from swimming in waters contaminated with E. coli. I do not know what redress there was for personal injury, but we know the source of the problem. Northumbrian Water, once a publicly owned authority but now under Chinese ownership, pollutes our seas whenever it rains. I looked yesterday at the Safer Seas & Rivers Service app, which I recommend to all hon.”
“My constituency was the backdrop to the iconic “Who’s Next” album cover and the location for a number of films, including “Get Carter”, “Billy Elliot” and, most recently, “The Old Oak”. That is why I am passionate about protecting our precious coastline. Industrial spoil from coal mining once blighted it and the beaches were blackened with coal dust and abandoned colliery infrastructure, but we reclaimed the coastline for nature. The “Turning The Tide” project removed industrial pollution from the east Durham coastline, and the improvement has made the environment more enjoyable for everyone. Coal spoil was once a visible scar on the environment, but water pollution represents a more insidious and more discreet risk to our health, welfare and environment.”
“Seaham has a newly decommissioned field gun, a further attraction, and is home to Tommy, a Ray Lonsdale world war one sculpture, an artwork that was voted the Sky Arts No. 1 public artwork and attracts a large number of people to our coastline. From Easington, the site of the former colliery, the views stretch from County Durham to North Yorkshire. A nature reserve sits at the centre of the once thriving industrial heart of the community, and it is also the site of a memorial garden that honours the 83 miners and rescuers who lost their lives in the terrible disaster at Easington colliery in 1951. Blackhall is another site of special scientific interest. The wildflowers and grass of the clifftops offer peaceful views, with easy access to Blackhall’s beach caves. The coastline is also home to a unique music and film heritage.”
“I am really pleased to speak in a very important debate for me and my constituents. The east Durham coastline is a huge asset to the region and to the country. From Seaham to Blackhall, I represent the most stunning coastline in Great Britain. We have amazing beaches, with an abundance of sea glass, sand dunes and limestone caves. Our seas are home to a formidable group of open water swimmers, braving the North sea at all times of the year. Our marina at Seaham provides access to various water sports, including canoeing, paddleboarding and windsurfing. Crimdon Dene visitor hub and café is encouraging more people to visit and enjoy our east Durham coastline. On the sea front and the clifftops of east Durham, there is also an array of art, iconic locations and national heritage.”
“If we cannot spend in the next Parliament, we need to regulate and reform. If privatised water is to remain, we must ensure that it works and benefits the people we all represent.”
“I support the following: the Government must block all future dividend payments until water companies meet set standards including clean water targets, debt targets, investment targets and low consumer bills; we need a zero dumping policy—sewage overflows must be an exception, not the normal practice; we need a sustainable water industry, which means an end to the practice of borrowing in order to pay dividends; and new and modern infrastructure must be prioritised before dividends. The promise of privatisation is always better service and lower costs, but we have seen worse service and higher bills every time. Private companies are driven by profits. The proposals that I have set out are a means of delivering the public interest. Dividends and profits should be awarded only when private companies deliver the promised services.”
“Private water companies have extracted huge dividends since privatisation, which they have secured through higher bills and a failure to invest, and by ramping up debt. In December 2022, The Guardian reported that water companies have paid £69.5 billion in dividends. Over the same period, they have racked up £54 billion in debts. Companies promise to invest in infrastructure, but only by passing on higher costs to consumers. Why do we accept water companies ripping us off, polluting our waters and telling us to pay to clean up their mess? The Government must take control of the situation.”
“What an excellent intervention, if I may say so. The suggestion that things are getting better is not the experience of my constituents—and as for the Minister’s commitment to addressing the issues, my feeling is that she is simply going through the motions. We need a solution. I am an old-school socialist. Clean water, rivers and seas are very important, and private water companies have failed in their duty of care. Those companies enjoy a privileged position: no competition, a weak regulator and a compliant Government. I want to end those private monopolies—we should control and run water in the national interest—but I am a realist: the Tories and my own party do not have the appetite for nationalisation, so I will propose an alternative.”
“I thank the Minister for that explanation. There is general acceptance that this is a positive measure. I was just reading the briefing note from the Wine and Spirit Trade Association, and I did not realise that we are the second biggest importer of wine in terms of quantity—we import 1.3 billion litres—and the 12th largest exporter. I looked through the impact assessment, but what impact will the bottling of blended wines have on employment? Will it be a positive as a result of this legislation?”
“I am grateful for that explanation, but I support the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge on the Labour Front Bench. It would be in everyone’s interests to have a clear system of labelling, particularly when half the wines we import are bulk wines that are subsequently blended. Is there a particular point of contention with the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly? Is there a particular issue that is concerning them?”
“Concerns have been expressed by the trade unions—I should add that I am a member of the PCS parliamentary group, so I declare an interest—to suggest that this legislation is in breach of article 11 of the European convention on human rights; article 3 of the freedom of association and protection of the right to organise convention No 87 of the International Labour Organisation; article 8 of the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights; and paragraph 4 of article 6 of the European social charter, which came into force in the year of my birth, 1961. I am interested in the Minister’s view of whether we are in breach of international law.”
“The Minister said that this is a significant piece of legislation intended not to outlaw strikes, but to ensure minimum service levels. Quite a number of people disagree with the Government’s intent and whether the legislation is the appropriate vehicle to achieve that, but I am asking for a point of clarification on the draft regulations. Beforehand, I was looking through the impact assessment and our obligations as a country under international law.”
“Can I draw the Minister’s attention to his comments about the use of the armed forces? I fully understand what was done in the pre-Christmas period last year because of the enormous queues that built up at airports and ports, but I have been told anecdotally that, because members of the armed forces could not operate the technology—they did not have any choice about this, and they were instructed to do it—they were simply waving people through. Anybody could have come in—people smugglers or anyone. If that is the last resort, surely the best solution is to negotiate with the trade unions to ensure that we have the right number of trained staff at our ports and airports and that an efficient service is operating for passengers and in the interests of national security.”
“The Government have estimated that 70% to 75% of staff at Border Force will be required to work on a strike day, which is three out of four workers. The Minister must explain why that level of minimum service is proportionate and why it does not amount to a complete ban on the right to strike. The regulations on border security present the most restrictive minimum service levels to date, even when compared with other sectors mentioned by the Minister. This is not just an attack on the rights of workers but a departure from the progressive principles of European rights and freedom of expression. The Government and the Minister must provide a clear and proportionate justification for the measures, keeping in mind their obligations under international law and the rights of our citizens.”
“The impact assessment on border security minimum service levels warns that some people’s right to strike will ultimately be affected. Border Force staff numbers based at smaller ports and airports, as the hon. Member for Glasgow Central indicated, especially in Scotland, are very low, so staff based at these locations could be more likely to receive work notices and less likely to be able to undertake strike action compared with other staff. There is an impact on those who have caring responsibilities and those who have disabled relatives. There are also issues of religion. Those are protected characteristics that a good employer would recognise, even on non-strike days, and seek to accommodate in staff rotas.”
“If the regulations are really about service to the public they should address some of the more fundamental issues such as understaffing on non-strike days. The undeniable truth is that workers in both Border Force and the Passport Office play a vital role in the functioning of the United Kingdom and indeed, as Government Members have pointed out, in relation to national security. Rather than restricting their rights, the Government should consider proper remuneration as a means to recognise and appreciate their contributions. The draft statutory instrument proposed by the Government, indicating that border services must remain as effective on strike days as on non-strike days, is not only restrictive but raises a legal question about the proportionality of such a measure.”
“The price of butter and basic commodities, as well as rents, have increased, which has prompted workers across the economy, in both the public and private sectors, to go on strike. The regulations, however, appear to be a crude attempt to undermine the effectiveness of trade unions and limit the ability of Border Force and Passport Office workers to take any effective industrial action. They could even lead to the absurd position of trade unions and their officials having to tell members who voted to withdraw their labour that they must come in on strike days. Make no mistake: this is an authoritarian crackdown on human rights completely alien to progressive European rights and the notion of freedom of expression.”
“With the introduction of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014—I believe that you served on the Bill Committee, Ms Elliott—the Trade Union Act 2016, and regulations permitting the recruitment of agency workers during strikes, the Government have already placed significant restrictions on workers’ rights and have significant powers in their toolbox. This year, not surprisingly, we have witnessed widespread industrial action because of the cost of living crisis—not because people have been staring at a full moon. Ordinary working people are really struggling to make ends meet and to pay increased fuel and electricity bills.”
“I want to take issue with the Minister’s comments about what was happening in Europe and their legislation to restrict strikes. I happen to know from personal experience that French rail workers are part of an agreement; they have a different system of sectoral agreements. They staged a strike that had a paralysing effect on Eurostar services at the weekend, despite the legislation in place. The solution, I suggest, is not draconian legislation but negotiation and discussion to find an amicable solution. We should not forget that the UK already has some of the strictest anti-trade-union laws in Europe.”
“The work undertaken by Border Force and the Passport Office is undeniably crucial, but a substantial body of opinion in the trade unions and beyond believes that this legislation is contrary to international law. It is both dangerous and reckless. We find ourselves at a crossroads. By introducing such a measure, our Government seem to be turning a blind eye to our international commitments on the right to strike. Fundamentally, it is imperative to acknowledge that the right to strike is enshrined in the Human Rights Act 1998, article 11 of the European convention on human rights, the International Labour Organization’s convention 87, and article 6, clause 4 of the European social charter. By pushing ahead with the legislation, the Government are unfortunately disregarding those vital international agreements.”
“I am grateful for this opportunity to raise some points about this important legislation. As I mentioned earlier, I am a member of the PCS parliamentary group—and virtually every other trade union group, as a matter of fact. I want to place on the record the concerns of PCS and the broader trade union movement about the implications of this legislation, which threatens to strip thousands of Border Force workers—and, we now learn, an as yet undetermined number of Passport Office workers—of their fundamental right to strike. That right should be protected not only by our own domestic laws but by international agreements. I raised that point earlier with the Minister, and it has been reinforced by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West and the hon. Member for Glasgow Central.”
“I am not a barrister or a lawyer, but I do think this is a really important point. Is there an analogy between reasonableness and proportionality? Would it be reasonable to have an independent arbiter of what constitutes a reasonable proportion of the workforce, rather than a Minister?”
“The hon. and learned Lady is making an excellent point, and making it far better than I could. I would like to reinforce the point. Article 11 states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.” The right for trade unions to take industrial action is further enshrined in the International Labour Organisation’s convention 87 and article 6(4) of the European social charter. The legislation seems to disregard those legal obligations.”
“My hon. Friend is making some really important points. Earlier today I attended a similar Committee on a statutory instrument that related to the UK Border Force and Passport Office. I am not a barrister, but some forceful legal arguments were put from the Opposition Benches about the UK’s responsibilities under international law. A term I heard that I was familiar with was what is deemed to be reasonable. In this context, it is about what is proportionate. That ties in exactly with the point that was just made: this is disproportionate and unlikely to stand up to a legal challenge. Why are we wasting our time considering the regulations when they are not worth the paper they are written on?”
“I believe that the number is currently about 124,000, but I might be mistaken. Our NHS staff are world class, with skills that are in global demand and recognised internationally. Our doctors, nurses, specialists and healthcare professionals will simply vote with their feet and take up opportunities in an emerging global health market that values and rewards their skills.”
“However, it is concerning that, when presented with an issue, this Government’s first instinct is to erode workers’ rights and protections. The best way to safeguard public services is not through confrontation, but through seeking to adopt a co-operative approach, conciliation and a negotiated settlement. I note the concern of NHS Providers in its consultation response to the Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish said, it warned that the proposed legislation would damage local and national relations and, far from limiting disruption, likely make the situation and industrial relations worse. The Government do not seem to want to negotiate and offer a fair pay settlement. Does the Minister believe that forcing through minimum service standards is likely to address or increase the number of vacancies in the NHS?”
“The lack of scrutiny and co-operation with trade unions while the regulations were being written is deeply concerning. There is a long-standing history of constructive, joint working between NHS employers and trade unions. We know that it is custom and practice for life and limb cover to be agreed on by unions locally and by trusts during industrial disputes. Those agreements protect patients at the same time as respecting the fundamental right of health workers to strike. That was amply demonstrated during the ambulance service strikes between December 2022 and February 2023. Government-imposed minimum service levels will further poison industrial relations in the NHS. The Government have a vital role in securing harmonious industrial relations and creating the right framework.”
“NHS Providers said that plans for ambulance minimum service levels “would add a further challenge to industrial relationships, at a time when the NHS most needs to protect them.” It said that minimum service levels “will not replace the need for derogation and staff recall arrangements but will make them harder to achieve.” When we use a sledgehammer to crack a nut—when we use words such as “conflict” and “combat”—we lose the good will of hard-working and dedicated individuals, so why would they make the effort to accommodate management’s requests, either then or at any other time? The proposal that the Government would compensate for the reduction in the ability to strike by committing to engage in disputes is unworkable, and their own impact assessment said so.”
“The imposition of minimum service levels would provide far less flexibility than the existing voluntary arrangements—so why would you do it? As NHS providers have highlighted, it is difficult to quantify the number of staff required for service delivery in advance of the strike. Under the voluntary arrangements, ambulance staff have agreed—and I have witnessed this—to leave their picket line to respond to patients’ needs; this would not be an option under the statutory scheme. So it may well be dangerous to go down the statutory route if the service is not as flexible in being able to respond.”
“Some were members of my own union, some were members of the GMB and some were members of Unison. On each occasion, even though very generous agreements were arranged, the members of the trade union involved in the dispute were more than willing, when they received the call, to man their ambulances and patient transports in response to the requests and calls. Even though some of the calls may not have been life-threatening, they were quite happy to do that. I do not think we should characterise them as being uncaring, because that is certainly not the case. That is not just my opinion; the Government’s own evidence states that “the issuing of work notices would be challenging and time-consuming”— a classic bit of understatement.”
“The regulations say that all 999 calls are to be “answered and triaged”. Ambulances are to respond to calls about people with a “life-threatening condition or illness… for whom there is no reasonable clinical alternative” or assistance at the scene, or transport to hospital. Patients are to be transferred from community settings to hospitals where their condition is life-threatening, or there is no reasonable alternative to an ambulance. Non-emergency transport is to operate as it would on a non-strike day. Particularly in relation to the non-urgent patient transport, I do not know how we can say that is proportional or reasonable if it is going to have to operate a 100% service. These regulations are not workable. I have visited several picket lines during the last two disputes in my constituency.”
“Regarding this set of regulations on the NHS ambulance service and the NHS patient transport service, the language used in the consultation document is, as my hon. Friend said, very different from the regulations before us. Indeed, it bears repeating that the document says that in consultation with the trade unions: “Instead of expecting that employers will always issue work notices to ensure MSLs are met, we recognise that they may be able to secure the same level of coverage through voluntary derogations, and they can continue to agree and rely on these instead, as long as they are confident that the MSL will be met.” Surely we do not need to be brain surgeons or rocket scientists to understand that that is the way forward, but it is very far from where we are in the regulations.”
“They much prefer to have meaningful negotiations with their employer, but the ability to withdraw labour is usually enough to prompt conversations and achieve a resolution prior to any strike taking place. This legislation is an attack on individual freedoms, without any prospect of improving industrial relations, but instead souring them. I will also say that surely the aim of Government and management must be to have, not a love-in, but a workable relationship and a harmonious workplace. Management use the term “reform”; I do not think any of my colleagues are against changing working practices to ensure that they are complying with modern standards and requirements, but it has to be done in a fair and reasonable way.”
“This SI will erode ambulance workers’ rights without addressing the causes of the industrial action—in other words, the cost of living crisis—and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish suggested, without seeking some mutually acceptable route to negotiation and a reasonable settlement of this and other disputes. That is perfectly reasonable if the political will is there to do it. If, on the other hand, the political will is to grandstand and demonise groups of workers—organised labour, dedicated doctors, senior doctors, ambulance workers, Border Force, train drivers and others—it is likely to be counterproductive. As I mentioned, taking industrial action is a last resort for workers.”
“I would be interested to hear the Minister’s justification for this action, because in an earlier SI, I heard the Immigration Minister talking about proportionality in terms of that regulation’s intention not to ban strikes but to ensure that there was a minimum level of service cover. That point may well be challenged in the courts. My fear is that this SI and the others in the same family disregard our obligations under those agreements and Britain’s pariah status of having the weakest trade union rights and workplace protections in the developed world will continue. Only Russia and ourselves are in conflict with the international treaties. That is a club that we really do not want to join. The global rights index published by the International Trade Union Confederation shows the UK to be a regular violator of workers’ rights.”
“No wonder groups of workers are enraged and forced to take industrial action. I want to make a point about our legal obligations. Although I have heard reports that the Conservative party would do away with the European convention on human rights, the convention is still on the statute book at the moment. As a nation, we have an obligation, as do the Government, under international law and international treaties. Article 11 states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.” The right to form trade unions and to take industrial action is further enshrined in the International Labour Organisation’s convention 87 and in article 6, clause 4 of the European social charter.”
“I thought my role was to hold the Executive to account, and I thought the role of this Committee, of which I am a member, was to scrutinise the legislation. How on earth can we do that if the Minister will not take interventions? I hope that in his concluding remarks he will address some of the points that have been made. We also have to think about why ambulance workers and other NHS staff take industrial action. It is not because they are bored. They are dedicated public servants, who do not take strike action lightly. Their actions are driven by the cost of living crisis—the huge increase in the cost of electricity, gas, utilities, transport, rents and everyday groceries. I was going to ask the Minister if he knew the price of a packet of Lurpak. It is incredible how the prices of basic staples have gone up over the past year or so.”
“When I had a proper job, I worked for the NHS for 17 years, so I am very familiar with the important work done by NHS staff at every level—ambulance and patient transport drivers, doctors, nurses, porters, paramedics and technical staff. It is a joint effort and we really should applaud them all. The draft Strikes (Minimum Service Levels: NHS Ambulance Services and the NHS Patient Transport Service) Regulations 2023 are, frankly, the latest draconian and unworkable assault on our political, democratic and civic rights. At the beginning of this debate, I wondered whether I should raise a point of order when several Labour Members sought to intervene on the Minister, in order to seek clarification.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq, I think for the first time. I am really pleased to be able to speak in this important debate and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish for his excellent speech. He has covered many of the points that I had wanted to make, but this debate is so important that I hope you will forgive me, Dr Huq, if I emphasise some of those points, as well as adding a few more. I should declare an interest as a member of Unite the union. I am a very proud member and I think I am still chair of the parliamentary group. In fact, I am a member of many trade union groups.”
“Let us not forget that these are the people we applauded on our doorsteps during the pandemic, but who the Government would have us reward by taking away a basic employment right. The Hippocratic oath says, “First, do no harm.” I ask the Minister to consider the evidence and recognise that these regulations are harmful to all our constituents, including his and mine, to health workers and to the NHS. I ask him not to take these needless actions, which will simply harm industrial relations without deriving any lasting or meaningful betterment. Let us have an agreed settlement to the underlying issues of pay, terms and conditions in the midst of a cost of living. I urge all Members to vote against this SI.”
“The UK Government should turn their focus to introducing safe levels of staffing throughout the year, not just on strike days. I am sure I am not the only Member who has had issues with the NHS ambulance service—in my case, the North East Ambulance Service. On several occasions—not on strike days, but on other days—there have been terrible failings by the service, and I blame senior management and processes. Whistleblowers have highlighted some appalling failures, which the Government and Ministers should be addressing in my area and others. We want a Government that believe in the NHS, the importance of public health, and the people who make all that possible by providing an excellent service, often in difficult circumstances.”
“I agree with my hon. Friend. We have seen that with the drain of staff to Scotland, where better terms and conditions were being offered. That has had a particularly marked impact in my region, near the Scottish border. The Government should be negotiating rather than undermining employment rights and terms and conditions. This debate goes beyond minimum service standards: it is about the type of society we want. Do we want combat or conciliation? Do we want a society where the Government can mandate people to work against their will, underpaying and demoralising them until they choose to work in countries elsewhere that better value their contribution? Or do we want a society where the Government set out their goals and targets for the NHS, utilise the vast knowledge and experience we have in the system, and properly pay the workforce?”
“The explanatory notes published for the regulations say that that legislation “already makes it an offence for a person to wilfully and maliciously break a contract of service or hire, knowing or having probable cause to believe that the consequence of doing so, either alone or in combination with others, will endanger human life or cause serious bodily injury.” But the note goes on to say: “However, this is a higher threshold than the Government is seeking to provide through MSLs.” Well, why bother then? We already have a higher threshold.”
“This important point needs clarifying, because SIs like this are coming forward in parallel in various sectors; there are four today, and there will probably be more to follow. On the rationale of having the application of minimum service standards for ambulance service workers and patient transport, will the Minister answer the point that my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) raised in relation to section 240 of the 1992 Act?”
“Does the Minister recognise that that is a qualified interpretation, based on the proportionality of what the Government are proposing in particular sectors in particular circumstances? Personally, I would not be too confident—I was going to say “cock-a-hoop”, but I do not know whether that is parliamentary—about the legal advice, because this might still fail under challenge.”