Evening Standard comment: It’s time for a ban on rail strikes by law

The finding that a majority of Londoners — 55 per cent in an Ipsos Mori poll for this paper — back a strike ban on train drivers is published on what is another strike day for Southern rail. It would be unsurprising if Southern commuters were not even more supportive of a ban than any other group of Londoners. Southern promises that tomorrow there will be no stoppages on its services; right now this feels like an unusual state of affairs.

Feelings in the rest of the country about banning rail workers from striking are very different from in London: 61 per cent of respondents nationwide do not support a ban. But that is because the rest of the country is less dependent on rail. London is reliant on a functioning rail service; if the trains don’t run, commuters don’t get to work, or arrive late, and business cannot function. The RMT and Aslef strikes have taken a toll on passengers’ jobs: some people have given up the struggle to commute and some have been sacked for being late. Rail workers are indisputably essential workers so far as London is concerned. They are the group who run the service which enables the London economy to function. When other workers strike it affects just their sector; when transport workers do so, it has an effect on everyone.

Tomorrow a Tory MP, Chris Philp, proposes a Bill that would give judges power to decide whether a strike on essential services, including rail and the NHS, is legitimate; if it became law, a strike could only go ahead with judicial approval. This will be an indication of parliamentary support for such a measure. Bringing in judges to decide the validity of a strike is one way to go; others would include raising the bar for approving action in a strike ballot or confining action to overtime bans.

The freedom to withhold labour is a valuable right but it cannot be absolute for those on whom the functioning of the economy depends: that includes rail workers. It’s time for the Government to introduce legislation of its own.

Brexit and the banks

The news that some banks including Morgan Stanley and JP Morgan are touring various European cities to establish where they should relocate workers and functions following Brexit should not make us panic. It would be astonishing if they were not to do so, given that they, like the rest of us, know nothing about what the outcome of the Brexit negotiations will be. This is not a mass exodus; but it should remind us of the potential risks of a bad Brexit. Still, the banks’ regulators would be remiss if they were not to encourage banks to plan ahead for every possible outcome to the negotiations.

This spreading of functions around Europe by the banks may be simple caution, but all the same the Government should be doing all it can to ensure the great majority of their operations remain here — and with it the tax revenues provided by the City. Post-Trump, London may have more to fear from more robust competition from New York than the EU. We must look to our strengths.

Don’t breathe in

Alerts were issued in several parts of London today in response to heightened levels of particulate pollution — another indication that there is still much to do to make London’s air safe. People with pre-existing respiratory conditions are particularly vulnerable. Indeed, Professor Jonathan Grigg — a specialist in paediatric respiratory and environmental medicine — says children with asthma should not play outside when pollution levels are at their highest. It is a sensible suggestion but a bleak one. What has it come to when our children have to stay inside to stay healthy?