Minimum Service Levels Bill receives Royal Assent

[Bald Rick]

There seems to be a misconception that an incoming Labour government will give the rail unions (and indeed other unions) everything they want. The repealing of this legislation I'm sure will be way down Labour's priority list.

I agree, but it would be much more straightforward to just instruct the relevant TOCs and NR not to issue work notices in a dispute.

 

[Chester1]

While the RMT isn't affiliated to Labour ASLEF is, as are most of the much larger unions.

I saw an interview on Sky News earlier with Sharon Graham of Unite, following an emergency TUC meeting. She said that unions would be likely to resort to breaking the law to resist the legislation. She also didn't trust Labour to repeal the legislation respite Angela Rayner already stating that it would.

Breaking the law would be a huge mistake. Starmer is trying to present the party as moderate as possible. I doubt the former director of public prosecutions wants swing voters to see him side with law breakers. The rail unions best approach would be quiet but strong lobbying behind the scenes.

There seems to be a misconception that an incoming Labour government will give the rail unions (and indeed other unions) everything they want. The repealing of this legislation I'm sure will be way down Labour's priority list.

Even if the Labour leadership is genuine about intending to repeal, I don't think a lot of members of this forum understand how valuable legislative time is. If Labour want to deliver change before a 2028 or 2029 general election they need to pass all the necessary legislation on the economy, health, education, housing and other topics by the end of 2026. There is a big delay between policies becoming law and them being fully implemented by a government. The coalition government's first two years in power were extremely busy for parliament. I would be gobsmacked if Labour find the time to repeal the MSL act before 2027. Its classic middle of a parliament stuff.

 

[greatkingrat]

They have specifically said it will be repealed in the first 100 days.

Britain's Labour party would repeal strike laws in first 100 days in power

Britain's opposition Labour Party would repeal recently-introduced legislation that limits workers' rights to strike if it wins an election expected next year, deputy leader Angela Rayner said on Tuesday, pledging to enhance employee protection.

www.reuters.com

 

[Starmill]

There seems to be a misconception that an incoming Labour government will give the rail unions (and indeed other unions) everything they want. The repealing of this legislation I'm sure will be way down Labour's priority list.

They would likely give their points a hearing and would of course be able to offer practical solutions through a reset for negotiations, as they'd not have the "baggage" of ill-will current Ministers do. Those points in themselves may help.

However just as you say, legislative changes and more public funding would be way down the list and won't happen immediately. If time runs out they may not happen at all.

Breaking the law would be a huge mistake. Starmer is trying to present the party as moderate as possible. I doubt the former director of public prosecutions wants swing voters to see him side with law breakers. The rail unions best approach would be quiet but strong lobbying behind the scenes.



Even if the Labour leadership is genuine about intending to repeal, I don't think a lot of members of this forum understand how valuable legislative time is. If Labour want to deliver change before a 2028 or 2029 general election they need to pass all the necessary legislation on the economy, health, education, housing and other topics by the end of 2026. There is a big delay between policies becoming law and them being fully implemented by a government. The coalition government's first two years in power were extremely busy for parliament. I would be gobsmacked if Labour find the time to repeal the MSL act before 2027. Its classic middle of a parliament stuff.

The incoming government can increase the available legislative time to be fair. It's relatively simple to shorten recess periods by a handful of days here and there, and increase the number of Fridays sitting. It's also possible to extend hours for some debates. However just as you hint this is only possible up to a point. There's absolutely nothing to stop Parliament sitting all day Friday and part of Saturday, save the willingness of government MPs to go along with it. It's costly and fussy to speed up Committee stages too, but again, it's possible. In proportionate terms it's only minor increase in legislative time that can be put forward.

 

[weeklycommuter]

A work notice is required to specify the work required to secure that level of service. A train operator cannot plan to deliver more than 40% of scheduled services if they issue work notices, it's total services planned not nominating which trains count towards the 40%.

The legislation 234C (5) indicates that the minimum service which is 40% of timetabled services within the period of the strike is the maximum that can be provided if work notices are issued. The following guidance says work notices can only be issued for a service which is 40% of timetabled services and cannot be issued for a service less than 40% or more than 40% of timetabled services.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6571e843049516000d49be46/strikes-minimum-service-levels-passenger-railway-services-regulations-2023-guidance-on-the-regulations.pdf

Work notices can only include staff reasonably necessary to secure the 40% minimum service level, and as such if work notices are issued the operator should not plan to deliver a service level above 40% during the strike period. Train operators should plan to deliver a number of services which is as close to a 40% service level as is reasonably practicable. Work notices cannot be issued to secure a service at a level less than the minimum level of service.

The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels: Passenger Railway Services) Regulations 2023

These Regulations are made under section 234B and 234F of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (c. 52) (“the 1992 Act”). They specify, for the purposes of enabling work notices under section 234C of that Act to be given:train operation services; andrailway infrastructure...

www.legislation.gov.uk

Minimum service levels: category A services
4.—(1) The level of service for the purposes of enabling work notices under section 234C of the 1992 Act to be given in relation to strikes as respects category A services, is the provision of the train operation services necessary to operate the equivalent of 40% of the timetabled services during the strike.
(2) For the purposes of this regulation a service is a timetabled service in relation to a person providing category A services if it is a service to be provided by that person which is specified in the National Rail Timetable as operating during the strike period, where a network or station is available to operate such a service.
(3) In paragraph (2)—
“National Rail Timetable” means the publication of that name most recently published by Network Rail relevant to the date of the strike(14);
“service specified in the National Rail Timetable” means each origin station to destination station train journey listed in the National Rail Timetable;“network” has the meaning given by section 83(1) of the 1993 Act.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023

www.legislation.gov.uk

234C Work notices relating to minimum service levels​

(1) Where minimum service regulations have been made as respects a relevant service, an employer may give a work notice to a trade union in relation to any strike—
(a) of which the union gives notice to the employer under section 234A, and
(b) which relates to the provision of the service.
(2) In this Part “work notice” means a notice in writing that levels of service under minimum service regulations are to apply in relation to a strike.
(3) A work notice must be given within the period beginning with the day on which the notice under section 234A is given and ending with—
(a) the 7th day before the earliest strike date to which it relates, or
(b)any later day that is agreed between the employer and the union.
(4) A work notice must—
(a) identify the persons required to work during the strike in order to secure that the levels of service under the minimum service regulations are provided, and
(b) specify the work required to be carried out by them during the strike in order to secure that those levels of service are provided.
(5) A work notice must not identify more persons than are reasonably necessary for the purpose of providing the levels of service under the minimum service regulations.
(6) In deciding whether to identify a person in a work notice, the employer must not have regard to—
(a) whether the person is or is not a member of a trade union,
(b) whether the person has or has not—
(i) taken part in the activities of a trade union, or
(ii) made use of services made available to the person by a trade union by virtue of the person’s membership of the union, or
(c) whether or not—
(i) a matter has been raised on the person’s behalf (with or without the person’s consent), or
(ii) the person has consented to the raising of a matter on the person’s behalf, by a trade union of which the person is a member.
(7) In subsection (6) “a trade union” includes—
(a) a particular trade union, and
(b) a particular branch or section of a particular trade union.
(8) Before giving a work notice, the employer must—
(a) consult the union about the number of persons to be identified and the work to be specified in the notice, and
(b) have regard to any views expressed by the union in response.
(9) The employer may vary a work notice, so far as relating to a strike date, and give the notice as varied to the trade union—
(a) before the end of the 4th day before the strike date, or
(b) before the end of any later day that is agreed between the employer and the union.
(10) Before varying a work notice the employer must—
(a) consult the union about the variation, so far as it relates to the matters mentioned in subsection (8)(a), and
(b) have regard to any views expressed by the union in response.
(11) For the purposes of this section, where a strike takes place over more than one day (continuously or discontinuously) each day is to be treated as a separate “strike date”.

As a rail passenger I want to see an end to train operators depending on overtime and rest day working to deliver the timetable as random cancellations without notice resulting from the train operator not having an available member of staff due to the train operator's reliance on overtime and rest day working have been far more of a problem for me than the occasional strike day for which I have two weeks notice.

 

[Thornaby 37]

Breaking the law would be a huge mistake. Starmer is trying to present the party as moderate as possible. I doubt the former director of public prosecutions wants swing voters to see him side with law breakers. The rail unions best approach would be quiet but strong lobbying behind the scenes.

The obvious tactic for the unions once this becomes law is to focus on rest day / overtime bans and work to rule
If an overtime ban in itself came anywhere near to a situation where only 40% of the service could run, then that would highlight serious failings by the TOC{s}

 

[SCDR_WMR]

The obvious tactic for the unions once this becomes law is to focus on rest day / overtime bans and work to rule
If an overtime ban in itself came anywhere near to a situation where only 40% of the service could run, then that would highlight serious failings by the TOC{s}

Which given the state of things over the last 2 weeks proves can cause significant disruption without the need for strikes

 

[ainsworth74]

Which given the state of things over the last 2 weeks proves can cause significant disruption without the need for strikes

Though only on certain TOCs and sometimes in certain areas. My part of Northern up here in the North East did have noticeably higher level of cancellations during the recent action short of a strike but I'd not call it "significant" disruption. The only significant disruption I had was a delay of 30 minutes caused by broken down train! Unlike last Friday when no Northern service ran anywhere...

Again, mileage will vary by TOC of course.

 

[Chester1]

They have specifically said it will be repealed in the first 100 days.

Britain's Labour party would repeal strike laws in first 100 days in power

Britain's opposition Labour Party would repeal recently-introduced legislation that limits workers' rights to strike if it wins an election expected next year, deputy leader Angela Rayner said on Tuesday, pledging to enhance employee protection.

www.reuters.com

I will believe that when I see it. Parties always front load their promises. They aren't going say this X is a third year issue. I am not against appealing the MLS, but I think they are over promisng by a very long way. I saw the same 100 day pledge on leasehold replacement for flats, which is a highly complicated issue and laughed. I would very much like to see the latter policy but doing it in first 100 days is ludicrous. MLS could be repealed in first 100 days if there was absolutely no meaningful opposition in House of Commons or House of Lords. As soon as there was opposition and therefore waste of parliamentary time they would look for compromises and rail unions will not be a priority. If you favour full repeal its better they introduce the legislation after they have made laws on health, education, policing etc.

They would likely give their points a hearing and would of course be able to offer practical solutions through a reset for negotiations, as they'd not have the "baggage" of ill-will current Ministers do. Those points in themselves may help.

However just as you say, legislative changes and more public funding would be way down the list and won't happen immediately. If time runs out they may not happen at all.


The incoming government can increase the available legislative time to be fair. It's relatively simple to shorten recess periods by a handful of days here and there, and increase the number of Fridays sitting. It's also possible to extend hours for some debates. However just as you hint this is only possible up to a point. There's absolutely nothing to stop Parliament sitting all day Friday and part of Saturday, save the willingness of government MPs to go along with it. It's costly and fussy to speed up Committee stages too, but again, it's possible. In proportionate terms it's only minor increase in legislative time that can be put forward.

MPs constituency time is already very limited so extending parliamentary sittings is only an emergency measure. I just don't believe Labour will treat it as a priority because its only a minor vote winner and they have a huge task ahead of them. From a cynical perspective they would benefit from using the MLS for a couple of years while money is especially tight and then repeal it when they get around to it. The timing of its repeal will be useful leverage with the unions.

 

[duffield]

Repealing a recent act which nothing else depends on should be really quick though - a one-line bill striking out the entire previous act should suffice. I don't see why this should take up any significant legislative time. I'm pretty sure the repeal of the fixed term parliament act went through in almost no time, for example.

 

[geoffk]

They would likely give their points a hearing and would of course be able to offer practical solutions through a reset for negotiations, as they'd not have the "baggage" of ill-will current Ministers do. Those points in themselves may help.

However just as you say, legislative changes and more public funding would be way down the list and won't happen immediately. If time runs out they may not happen at all.


The incoming government can increase the available legislative time to be fair. It's relatively simple to shorten recess periods by a handful of days here and there, and increase the number of Fridays sitting. It's also possible to extend hours for some debates. However just as you hint this is only possible up to a point. There's absolutely nothing to stop Parliament sitting all day Friday and part of Saturday, save the willingness of government MPs to go along with it. It's costly and fussy to speed up Committee stages too, but again, it's possible. In proportionate terms it's only minor increase in legislative time that can be put forward.

And you could have electronic voting in Parliament, which would save a lot of time. Of course this requires a new debating chamber with an allocated seat for each MP. But that's getting off the subject here.

 

[387star]

They have specifically said it will be repealed in the first 100 days.

Britain's Labour party would repeal strike laws in first 100 days in power

Britain's opposition Labour Party would repeal recently-introduced legislation that limits workers' rights to strike if it wins an election expected next year, deputy leader Angela Rayner said on Tuesday, pledging to enhance employee protection.

www.reuters.com

Yes and there's loads of opposition including House of Lords and Europe
2017 act will be repealed too

 

[Chester1]

Repealing a recent act which nothing else depends on should be really quick though - a one-line bill striking out the entire previous act should suffice. I don't see why this should take up any significant legislative time. I'm pretty sure the repeal of the fixed term parliament act went through in almost no time, for example.

It still needs to go through every debate stage and committee stage, in both houses of Parliament.

Off the top of my head I think government business time in each chamber is less than 600 hours per year. Committees meet in mornings. Fridays are for private members bills and other non essential business to allow MPs to spend more time in their constituenicies. The opposition parties have allocated time, the Prime Minister and Ministers have to answer questions. At a minimum its probably 15 hours house of commons time to repeal a law, assuming the Conservatives don't cause trouble, which they will. Lets say they waste 30 hours in each house (less than 3 minutes speaking per MP). Thats more than 5% of government legislative time on issue that will win very, very few new votes for Labour. Opposing the repeal will be more of a priority for the Conservatives than repealing will be for Labour. I think they will get around to it eventually but that people who think the legislation will be repealed by end of next year are being extremely optimistic.

 

[Goldfish62]

It still needs to go through every debate stage and committee stage, in both houses of Parliament.

Off the top of my head I think government business time in each chamber is less than 600 hours per year. Committees meet in mornings. Fridays are for private members bills and other non essential business to allow MPs to spend more time in their constituenicies. The opposition parties have allocated time, the Prime Minister and Ministers have to answer questions. At a minimum its probably 15 hours house of commons time to repeal a law, assuming the Conservatives don't cause trouble, which they will. Lets say they waste 30 hours in each house (less than 3 minutes speaking per MP). Thats more than 5% of government legislative time on issue that will win very, very few new votes for Labour. Opposing the repeal will be more of a priority for the Conservatives than repealing will be for Labour. I think they will get around to it eventually but that people who think the legislation will be repealed by end of next year are being extremely optimistic.

Forget how many votes it would win. Labour has committed to the unions that they will repeal it. The unions are going to hold Labour to that to get it done ASAP. If they don't then I can see some significant unions withdrawing their funding.

Personally as a rather centrist lefty who wants Labour to get in I would be disgusted if they reneged on their promise.

 

[ComUtoR]

As a rail passenger I want to see an end to train operators depending on overtime and rest day working to deliver the timetable as random cancellations without notice resulting from the train operator not having an available member of staff due to the train operator's reliance on overtime and rest day working have been far more of a problem for me than the occasional strike day for which I have two weeks notice.

How would this Bill do that ?

 

[12LDA28C]

As a rail passenger I want to see an end to train operators depending on overtime and rest day working to deliver the timetable as random cancellations without notice resulting from the train operator not having an available member of staff due to the train operator's reliance on overtime and rest day working have been far more of a problem for me than the occasional strike day for which I have two weeks notice.

I'm wondering how you can be so sure that a late-notice cancellation has resulted from the operator's 'reliance on overtime and rest day working' and not simply on a member of staff on a rostered turn going sick, or indeed for any other number of reasons.

 

[Starmill]

It still needs to go through every debate stage and committee stage, in both houses of Parliament.

Off the top of my head I think government business time in each chamber is less than 600 hours per year. Committees meet in mornings. Fridays are for private members bills and other non essential business to allow MPs to spend more time in their constituenicies. The opposition parties have allocated time, the Prime Minister and Ministers have to answer questions. At a minimum its probably 15 hours house of commons time to repeal a law, assuming the Conservatives don't cause trouble, which they will. Lets say they waste 30 hours in each house (less than 3 minutes speaking per MP). Thats more than 5% of government legislative time on issue that will win very, very few new votes for Labour. Opposing the repeal will be more of a priority for the Conservatives than repealing will be for Labour. I think they will get around to it eventually but that people who think the legislation will be repealed by end of next year are being extremely optimistic.

5% is a bit of an overestimate. It's actually very possible for a new government to slide in more time. They can also bundle some tasks together to get them through more quickly and make them more difficult to wreck, but only if they put on a united front.

 

[weeklycommuter]

How would this Bill do that ?

The Minimum Services Act 2023 does nothing to solve the problem of train operators depending on overtime and rest day working to deliver the timetable. If it results it some railway staff deciding to leave their jobs it would make matters worse. The train operators need to recruit and train enough additional staff especially train drivers to enable the full railway timetable seven days a week to be delivered by staff working their contracted hours with no overtime or rest day working. This Government should be requiring all train operators to do this and not block them from doing this. The Minimum Services Act 2023 damages the railway and should be repealed without delay.
The problem of train operators depending on overtime and rest day working came up at the House of Commons Transport Committee on 6 September 2023 and I wish the Rail Minister would take action to end the dependence on overtime and rest day working to deliver the full railway timetable.

https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/13592/html

Huw Merriman: Perhaps I could add this, if it helps. It concerns me. I have commissioned some work in the Department. To take one of Mr Smith’s Chiltern lines, when there is action short of a strike, one of those lines just does not work—Princes Risborough. Therefore, you have lost fare revenue. Obviously, you have inconvenienced the passengers and lost fare revenue. You have the cost of the bus replacement service. I want to see how this is all actually computed.
While there has been an assumption that rest-day working is better because there is bandwidth, it is good for the workforce because they can work overtime and it is good for the train operators because they do not have to recruit as much, I don’t believe that all of the costs have been taken into account, so I have asked what the benefits are financially in having rest-day working, and what the costs are. There are also other provisions. For example, with certain operators, if somebody is off sick, they cannot be covered unless there is rest-day working. If there is no rest-day working agreement, it means they cannot be covered, so you have lost revenue there. I want to see all of that calculated so that I can discuss with Treasury officials whether there is more of a case for employing more drivers. Then you can run operations at all times. A driver is contracted to work 35 hours in a four-day week and is paid an average of £60,000. If the feeling is that the drivers do not want to do beyond that, it is my responsibility as Rail Minister to ensure that we have resilience and enough drivers so that we can work to that model. At the moment, I do not feel we do.
Huw Merriman: It has just built up over the years. Avanti was a good example, where it had just become part of the occurrence. I guess it suited everyone when it worked very well and there were no strikes. Drivers got more hours and could work overtime, particularly on the longer distance routes where you can clear your shifts in a shorter period of time.
Huw Merriman: I believe, over the years, there has been complacency. I am afraid to say that it is when things go wrong that you then recognise that that is no way to run it; you do not have the resilience. That work got commissioned when I was actually visiting the Committee in Mr Smith’s constituency. I was up at Aylesbury, and I could see the replacement buses there. I realised that the service had been cancelled due to rest-day working. It had been taken down because it was action short of a strike. Because we cannot see an end to the strikes with ASLEF, in my mind it is even more imperative that we work to a solution that means that, if there is action short of a strike, it does not have the impact because we have enough drivers to allow everyone to drive for a 35-hour week and that is it.

 

[12LDA28C]

The train operators need to recruit and train enough additional staff especially train drivers to enable the full railway timetable seven days a week to be delivered by staff working their contracted hours with no overtime or rest day working. This Government should be requiring all train operators to do this and not block them from doing this.

You are aware that this is how the railway has been run for decades and it suits the TOCs and the Government because they save money on recruiting full-time staff? Of course the Unions are in favour of increasing recruitment to reduce reliance on RDW/overtime because it gets them more fee-paying members but don't expect the Government to fund it across the board - they want to spend less money on the railway, not more.

 

[weeklycommuter]

I'm wondering how you can be so sure that a late-notice cancellation has resulted from the operator's 'reliance on overtime and rest day working' and not simply on a member of staff on a rostered turn going sick, or indeed for any other number of reasons.

The reason given for the cancellation of the service is always a shortage of train crew. This has happened a number of times with Southern and Thameslink services in particular that I was planning to travel on. I have not found it to be a problem with South Western Railway but I note that it is a serious problem with some other train operators which is clearly disrupting people's lives. Train operators need to have enough drivers to cover normal levels of sickness to reliably deliver their timetables.

 

[dk1]

The reason given for the cancellation of the service is always a shortage of train crew. This has happened a number of times with Southern and Thameslink services in particular that I was planning to travel on. I have not found it to be a problem with South Western Railway but I note that it is a serious problem with some other train operators which is clearly disrupting people's lives. Train operators need to have enough drivers to cover normal levels of sickness to reliably deliver their timetables.

It’s an age old problem with some operators. Mine however is one of the shining lights in driver training. It is however not an easy fix with many due to staffing agreements and I can’t see any change on the horizon to remedy that in the short term.

 

[12LDA28C]

The reason given for the cancellation of the service is always a shortage of train crew. This has happened a number of times with Southern and Thameslink services in particular that I was planning to travel on. I have not found it to be a problem with South Western Railway but I note that it is a serious problem with some other train operators which is clearly disrupting people's lives. Train operators need to have enough drivers to cover normal levels of sickness to reliably deliver their timetables.

That doesn't necessarily mean though that the 'shortage of train crew' is down to a reliance on RDW/overtime. That would also be the reason given if somebody had gone sick, unless you expect to be told that 'Driver Bob had a dose of the sh!ts' which is the reason your train was caped.

 

[Chester1]

Forget how many votes it would win. Labour has committed to the unions that they will repeal it. The unions are going to hold Labour to that to get it done ASAP. If they don't then I can see some significant unions withdrawing their funding.

Personally as a rather centrist lefty who wants Labour to get in I would be disgusted if they reneged on their promise.

I am sure they will keep the promise of repealing the MLS during the next parliament. The first 100 days target may not even make it into their manifesto. Once the general election is over Labour's need for funding from the unions will reduce for a while.

Even if Labour did it in first 100 days we are talking about the MLS being law potentially as late as April 2025. A May general election is wishful thinking when the Tories are so far behind in the polls. They would be throwing away eight months in power for no obvious benefit. If I was a betting man I would put money on Thursday 24th October. Sunak would hit the two year mark the following day, presumably when he has to resign. It is also the last Thursday before US elections that avoids a Halloween election day and the inevitable bad optics of that. Any later and turnout with Tory leaning elderly voters becomes a risk. 12th December 2019 was a desperate but necessary choice by Boris. The last legal day is 28th January 2025. (Parliament disolves automatically the day before its 5th anniversary).

I know this is slightly OT but it matters because there a very realistic prospect of the legislation being in law for over a year, possibly as long as another 3 years.

Labour may go down the coalition route of a two year first session with a double sized King's speech agenda. I think that was done because the coalition needed to provide legislation to please the factions within both parties while having a reasonable degree of flexibility over timing. Where repealing the MLS would fall with such a program would be up to the leadership and dependent on "events."

5% is a bit of an overestimate. It's actually very possible for a new government to slide in more time. They can also bundle some tasks together to get them through more quickly and make them more difficult to wreck, but only if they put on a united front.

5% was a back of a cigarette packet calculation. It may well be a bit less but its not trivial for a party likely to want to pass probably about 30 pieces of legislation early in its term. All the new secretaries of state will be fighting like ferrets in a sack to get legislative time for their signature policies.

 

[Goldfish62]

I am sure they will keep the promise of repealing the MLS during the next parliament. The first 100 days target may not even make it into their manifesto. Once the general election is over Labour's need for funding from the unions will reduce for a while.

Generally don't disagree, except on your last point. Union funding doesn't turn on and off like a tap. Once it's gone it's likely to be gone for good, and the following election won't be far way. Remember that the RMT de-affiliated from Labour and didn't even return on Corbyn's Labour. If the likes of Unite, GMB or Unison were ever to stop funding that would be a disaster for the party.

I agree, but it would be much more straightforward to just instruct the relevant TOCs and NR not to issue work notices in a dispute.

Yes! As Sharon Graham pointed out the other day issuing of work notices is entirely voluntary.

 

[CyrusWuff]

As Sharon Graham pointed out the other day issuing of work notices is entirely voluntary.

Whilst it may be voluntary on paper, I strongly suspect the DfT-funded TOCs will be instructed to issue them.

 

[CaptainBen]

The unions are going to hold Labour to that to get it done ASAP. If they don't then I can see some significant unions withdrawing their funding.

I suspect that's exactly what the Conservatives are planning on.

Labour is in a lose-lose situation here, assuming it is in power after the next election:

• If it repeals the MSL Act, it's "beholden to the unelected unions".
• If it gives in to the demands of the unions in the various industrial relations disputes (not just in rail, but in teaching, health, etc...), it's "beholden to the unelected unions".
• If it does both, double-whammy.
• If it does neither, the strikes/ASOS carry on and they get all the flak currently being directed at the Conservatives for not fixing things.

I'd bet that the Conservative attack line for most of the next Parliament will be asking who actually runs the country: Parliament or the unions? That line worked rather well in the late 70s, and look what happened after that.

 

[Starmill]

5% was a back of a cigarette packet calculation. It may well be a bit less but its not trivial for a party likely to want to pass probably about 30 pieces of legislation early in its term. All the new secretaries of state will be fighting like ferrets in a sack to get legislative time for their signature policies.

No but at 1-2% that's quite feasible as a plank of secondary policy. Currently there's very little in their signature policy cabinet for it to compete with...

 

[Facing Back]

Whilst it may be voluntary on paper, I strongly suspect the DfT-funded TOCs will be instructed to issue them.

I would guess that the be true with a conservative government. I think it is less likely with a new labour one. I’m sceptical about parliamentary time being spent on this - like a few posters here - but a change to contracts to remove this option from TOCs would not require such, although that will only be helpful for rail - it won’t make much for the other groups impacted by this

 

[Goldfish62]

Whilst it may be voluntary on paper, I strongly suspect the DfT-funded TOCs will be instructed to issue them.

Oh without doubt in them case of this government, but not necessarily a future government. I see no way that a Labour government would issue such an instruction.

Remember also that railways are just a small part of this. It encompasses a multitude of organisations in both the private and public sector, the latter inc Labour led local authorities.

 

[Krokodil]

They have specifically said it will be repealed in the first 100 days.

Britain's Labour party would repeal strike laws in first 100 days in power

Britain's opposition Labour Party would repeal recently-introduced legislation that limits workers' rights to strike if it wins an election expected next year, deputy leader Angela Rayner said on Tuesday, pledging to enhance employee protection.

www.reuters.com

Politicians specifically say lots of things

Though only on certain TOCs and sometimes in certain areas. My part of Northern up here in the North East did have noticeably higher level of cancellations during the recent action short of a strike but I'd not call it "significant" disruption. The only significant disruption I had was a delay of 30 minutes caused by broken down train! Unlike last Friday when no Northern service ran anywhere...

Again, mileage will vary by TOC of course.

Avanti's timetable for example has been decimated. There won't be a national rail strike going forward anyway, individual TOCs will be negotiating seperately.

You are aware that this is how the railway has been run for decades and it suits the TOCs and the Government because they save money on recruiting full-time staff? Of course the Unions are in favour of increasing recruitment to reduce reliance on RDW/overtime because it gets them more fee-paying members but don't expect the Government to fund it across the board - they want to spend less money on the railway, not more.

This government maybe. Though there are DfT staff embedded in Avanti to see how dependence upon RDW can be reduced (it's not going well there) A different government? I wouldn't be so sure. The Labour administration in Wales has agreed to significant pay rises in return for traincrew bringing Sundays inside the working week.

That doesn't necessarily mean though that the 'shortage of train crew' is down to a reliance on RDW/overtime. That would also be the reason given if somebody had gone sick, unless you expect to be told that 'Driver Bob had a dose of the sh!ts' which is the reason your train was caped.

If the "shortage of traincrew" cancellation is a P-coded one (i.e. announced before 10pm the evening before) then it's clearly down to not having enough staff because there should be enough time to step up spare crews - provided of course that you have any spares.

Whilst it may be voluntary on paper, I strongly suspect the DfT-funded TOCs will be instructed to issue them.

Again, the colour of the politician in post at the time will have a significant influence.