A parliamentary joint committee has urged the government to remember its human rights obligations when considering new anti-strike legislation. MPs and members of the House of Lords agreed that the proposed Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill would likely be contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), brought into domestic law under the Human Rights Act 1998.

The bill has faced widespread criticism since it was introduced on 10 January 2023 by Grant Shapps MP, the then business, energy and industrial strategy secretary. It was a reaction to the widespread industrial action across sectors, which has emerged in recent months. High costs and low wages have compounded to force many onto the picket line, demanding better pay.

On 6 March, the Joint Committee on Human Rights published Legislative scrutiny: Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill 2022–2023. Tenth report of session 2022–23 (HC 1088/HL Paper 157), which expressed concern about ‘whether the bill is compatible with the UK’s human rights obligations’ (page 3). ECHR article 11 (the right to freedom of assembly and association) has been interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights as protecting the right to strike1Ognevenko v Russia App No 44873/09, 20 November 2018 at para 61. and therefore the government’s proposed bill ‘amounts to a serious interference with article 11 rights’ (para 75, page 27).

The report warns that the government has not made a strong enough case for there being a ‘pressing social need’ for the legislation. Clarity was one of the main issues: ‘We do not consider that the government has given clear and compelling reasons why the current legal protections that apply to strikes … are no longer sufficient’ (page 4).

Under the bill, striking employees could be forced back to work or risk being sacked. Minimum service levels would be assigned for a select number of key services, including fire, ambulance and rail, in order to minimise disruption. However, Mick Lynch, general secretary of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT), compared the government’s proposals to those of ‘repressive regimes’, stating that they are ‘unacceptable in a free society’ (‘RMT chief Mick Lynch compares government to “repressive regimes like China” in LBC phone-in’, LBC, 4 January 2023).

Responding to the committee’s report, a government spokesperson said: ‘We note this report and will consider it in full, but the government needs to maintain a reasonable balance between the ability of workers to strike and the rights of the public, who work hard and expect essential services to be there when they need them’ (Emine Sinmaz, ‘Anti-strike bill “fails to meet UK’s human rights obligations”, MPs and peers say’, Guardian, 6 March 2023).