Grants Shapps’ anti-strike plan faces tough time in the Lords and the courts

Grant Shapps does not see any reason for his anti-strike legislation to be held up in parliament. The business secretary has said plans to enforce minimum service levels in six key sectors – including rail, fire and the NHS – during strikes are simply “common sense”.

But the Tory cabinet minister knows he faces a tough task getting his way. Mr Shapps revealed on Tuesday that the government is now busy preparing for a possible legal battle, after furious unions vowed to take the matter to court.

The Trades Union Congress (TUC) is leading on legal action against the move. Officials claim that the enforcement of minimum safety levels restricts a worker’s right to strike – citing international labour laws and the Human Rights Act 1998.

Tory MPs are largely supportive of the move, viewing it as a good way of putting some symbolic distance between the party and the opposition on strike disruption. So it looks set to clear the Commons easily enough.

However, the Lords may have different ideas. The upper chamber has proved a thorn in the side of the Tory government, enjoying some recent success in watering down the harshest elements of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill and the Nationality and Borders Bill.

Some peers have been adamant about opposing the legislation put forward to give ministers the power to unilaterally override the Northern Ireland Protocol – a radical move currently on hold while UK-EU talks take place.

So the Lords will be studying the anti-strike bill very closely to see if it conforms with both human rights and international labour laws.

They will also be studying strike legislation in place in France, Germany, Spain and others, after Mr Shapps claimed that he was only trying to bring the UK in line with restrictions already in place in western Europe.

The cabinet minister, for his part, has denied that the radical move will break human rights law. In most areas, the government will at least try to pursue voluntary agreements on the precise level of “minimum safety” cover.

But the government will be the ultimate arbiter of the cover in place. And the law would give employers the power to sack workers if safety levels during strikes are not obeyed. This is not something the unions will accept without a fight.

The TUC’s Paul Nowak said on Tuesday that the plan was “undemocratic, unworkable and almost certainly illegal” – describing it as a “sack-key-workers bill”.

Labour – vowing to repeal the legislation if it wins power – has said it is “utterly stupid” for Mr Shapps to go from thanking nurses to proposing to sack them for striking. The business secretary will have to hope peers and court judges think otherwise.