Performance of Royal Mail

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

I refer the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests of support from the trade unions. We have come to something with Royal Mail when the surest way of getting a letter delivered on time is by putting it inside a parcel, but that is the sorry situation we face. What a place to be in with this fantastic national British institution.

For years now, residents across my constituency have been contacting me about issues, and we have discussed things with the staff at the sorting offices, working closely with the CWU and the workforce. The situation we are seeing at the Royal Mail is undoubtedly a deliberate ploy to end the universal service obligation. If things are not halted and the private company is not reined in, we will probably see the end of the Royal Mail.

Like most other speakers, I pay tribute to the staff and the posties who have done a fantastic job. Did the posties not carry on through covid? These are fantastic public sector workers who at one time were so proud of being posties. That is not there any more. It has been bashed out of them.

I recognise that there are time constraints in this debate, but I will mention some of the issues facing my constituents. It is horrendous—it is chaos. We have hospital appointments being missed. We have medical correspondence being missed and delayed. We have financial hardship being caused by late bills and official documents not being received. We have postal votes for democratic elections not being received, and vulnerable residents left anxious and frustrated as they wait for important communications. We have an elderly man who received a fine of £600 because of a traffic incident; he was accused of not returning the letter, despite the fact that he had.

It is not just about receiving correspondence; it is about sending it. I am going to say something pretty coarse, but I make no apologies, because it is important. I had an individual who was taking his well man test; he sent a poo sample to the hospital, as you do. Weeks later, he got a letter from the doctor saying, “Sorry, can you do it again? Your sample lay in the sorting office for far too long.” For heaven’s sake, that is coarse, but it is the sort of thing that we are facing. I can see the grimace on Madam Deputy Speaker’s face, and she is right! It is horrendous to think that this is the case. We have got to look at it.

What about the people who are waiting anxiously by the letterbox for results of tests for cancer or other medical problems? What about the people waiting for their passports to go on holiday? It cannot continue. It is important to recognise that the speeches in this debate have been broadly in line with each other, apart from those Lib Dems who say that Ofcom should have more powers and will not accept that—perhaps, perhaps—the renationalisation of Royal Mail is the answer.

The postal service is not a luxury; it is an essential, critical public service. It should exist to serve the public interest, not simply the interests of the market. If private ownership cannot deliver the reliable universal service that people have every right to expect, then the Government must be prepared to act. I want the second option proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones): renationalise the Royal Mail and see how it develops. The message today is simple: the excuses and broken promises must stop; the services must be fixed; and if Royal Mail cannot fix them, we should give the public the opportunity to run it properly once again.

I am sure that I am not the only Member who received an email this morning from, I think, the director of communications at Royal Mail, telling me how things are going to be better tomorrow. I have met with directors of communications—regionally, nationally, next door—who promised the world and, as is typical for Royal Mail, did not deliver. When I have met them, they have all been genuinely decent people, but they have not had any grip on or understanding of exactly what is happening in Royal Mail itself.

I believe the hard-working posties; I believe the people who have been committed to that employment for a lifetime. Royal Mail was established over 400 years ago, and we need to ensure that it continues for another 400 years—perhaps with nationalisation.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Mineworkers’ Pension Schemes: Nottinghamshire

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (Blair McDougall)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) for securing this debate, for his leadership on behalf of miners and also for taking the time to recognise and remember today’s anniversary. The poet Ron Cook described Aberfan as the day

“when the world stood still and the mountain moved”.

Aberfan was one of those tragedies that so overwhelming in its injustice that it is painful to think about, but that is precisely why it is essential to remember.

My hon. Friend’s speech also brought to mind a story I read of the Victoria colliery disaster in my own constituency, where 63 men and boys were killed. The bodies were laid out in the churchyard of St John’s church in Barrhead, where the local women faced the unimaginable horror of having to identify the remains not just of a husband but of a son. I will come to what miners are owed in a moment, but it is right that we recognise at the start of this debate that those debts cannot be repaid by anyone. My hon. Friend says that this is not about money, but as we discuss money and pension schemes and their distribution, we remember that, my God, the miners earned every penny of it.

As my hon. Friend will know well, the British Coal staff superannuation scheme dates back to 1946 and the mineworkers’ pension scheme to 1952. When the British Coal Board was privatised in 1994, the schemes were closed to new entrants and the remaining employees were given the right to participate in successor schemes. The Government of the day gave the mineworkers a guarantee: the value of the fund would not decrease—this would ensure that pensions would continue to be paid—and the Government would take half of any surplus from the investment. The other half could be used to improve benefits through bonus pensions. For the miners’ scheme, this surplus sharing arrangement has continued, although this Government have not taken any money from the scheme since we came to power in 2024. For the British Coal staff scheme, the surplus sharing arrangement was ended in 2015, and future benefits were fixed, ensuring that pensions could be paid. The aim is to return the reserve to Government in 2033.

Since the 2015 changes, the scheme’s investments have performed well, building up a reserve of £2.3 billion. I join hon. Members in paying tribute to the campaigners who, all the way through this, have spoken up for miners, ensuring that they get what they deserve. Today, there remain almost 150,000 members of the two schemes, the vast majority of whom are receiving their pension. Five thousand of them are in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and 37,000 are across the east midlands. The average age of members across the two schemes is 76, as hon. Members have said. The group includes 30,000 widows, with an average age of 84.

We owe former mining communities a debt of gratitude for their contribution to national prosperity, and we must acknowledge and recognise the hard work and sacrifice of coalminers, who powered this country for decades.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

I must declare an interest: I am a member of the mineworkers’ pension scheme, and a former miner—probably the only one in the Commons at this moment in time. We must recognise that the Labour party had in its manifesto in 2017, 2019 and 2024 that it would seek justice for the mineworkers in the pension scheme. It is only when a Government are elected that they are allowed to deliver on their manifesto, and we actually did that. We made a huge difference only a few months ago. There is a lot more to do, and I ask the Minister what other people have asked: can he give assurances to the members of the mineworkers’ pension scheme, and the families and widows, that he will do everything in his power to ensure that in the Budget next week, miners in our coalfields are given full justice?

[Blair McDougall]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work on behalf of miners throughout his life. I will come to the specifics of the scheme and his ask in a moment, but he is absolutely right that issues like this are exactly why all of us came into politics in the first place; we came into politics to deliver for individuals like these.

Previous Governments have failed to ensure that former British Coal employees got the amount of pension they deserved. In 2021, the Select Committee looking at the mineworkers’ pension scheme recommended that the Government take no further funds from the scheme, transfer the reserve to scheme members and review the surplus sharing arrangements. That Conservative Government declined to accept those recommendations, but miners, as my hon. Friend said, deserve those historical wrongs to be righted. That is why the Government are implementing those recommendations, for both schemes.

We continue to guarantee both schemes, ensuring that scheme members’ pensions will always be paid. As has been said, in 2024, one of the first decisions we made was to transfer the £1.5 billion investment reserve in the miners’ scheme for use as bonus pensions. The hard work of colleagues on the Labour Benches increased those incomes by 32%—an average of £29 per week.

We have also transferred the £2.3 billion equivalent in the British coal staff scheme. That led to a 41% increase in pension incomes last December, backdated to November 2024. On average, that meant an extra £100 per week in scheme members’ pockets and, as has been said, that went into local economies. That is direct support for the pensioners and local communities who powered this country for decades.

However, as all the hon. Members who have contributed to the debate have said, there is more to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield raises important questions. We are in that terrible pre-Budget period when lots of Ministers stand at the Dispatch Box and ask for patience. I have to do the same, but I recognise that we are dealing with people who are incredibly advanced in years and cannot afford to wait indefinitely.

We have been discussing proposals for future arrangements for the scheme with the trustees, including the potential for future surpluses to be used to enhance benefits, and we have been making good progress. The Government will make an announcement once that agreement has been formally reached, and we are seeking to do that as swiftly as possible, while managing wider funding risks. The Government and trustees have had very constructive discussions. I hope to be in a position to announce a way forward shortly, and I will continue to work with hon. Members towards that end.

Question put and agreed to.

Kinship Carers: Statutory Paid Employment Leave

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Melanie Onn]

I was not aware that the Education Committee did that inquiry. It goes very well with an inquiry that the APPG on kinship care did recently on the SEND needs of children in kinship care. Across Parliament, Members who have connections with kinship care communities recognise that children often arrive with additional needs, and that families often have no experience of managing or dealing with that. If a person in work, regardless of what their job is, is suddenly expected to provide for the needs of a child—it could be a physical need, or a mental, emotional or cognitive need—they have to figure it out, and in this day and age we should not expect them to take unpaid leave to navigate their way through that. They are stepping forward to provide safety and stability—the same level of care that we expect foster carers to provide. If the state provides foster care for a child in need, we make available all the necessary support, including the right to paid leave, but kinship carers are not currently entitled to that.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is a tremendous advocate for kinship carers up and down this country. On more than one occasion, she has mentioned the circumstances that ordinary people find themselves in when faced with relations, close friends or potentially their own kids going into care. It is very emotional.

Lots of people who accept kinship carers, such as Linda Watson in my constituency, feel the need to ensure that their children are not taken into care. They need to give them the best possible start in life, or the best way in life, at whatever age they are. A lot of kinship carers believe that a pat on the back, a rub on the back of the neck, a pat on the head and a big thank you are not enough. They need financial support so that they can give these kids, who are already in a difficult position with their family life and all the rest of it, a good start in life. In order to do that, kinship carers need the right support; they need adequate financial support.

[Melanie Onn]

I thank my hon. Friend for his powerful contribution. To build on that, eight in 10 kinship carers who leave their work never return to paid employment. This is not just a short-term problem; it can lead to lifelong issues.

The Government have pledged to ensure that people are in work for the long term, and they are setting an example of what work means, but providing sufficient flexibility in our employment law is the right way to go to ensure that these families can be self-sufficient while providing support and love for the child. They should be able to earn a living without being penalised. My constituent Lucy was in the same position as the constituent of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson): she had to take a mix of sick leave and compassionate leave, which her employer very kindly jumbled together. She said, “Why should my kids be disadvantaged because the system doesn’t recognise them and doesn’t really work for them?”

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Blair McDougall]

We will absolutely discuss that. As my hon. Friend knows—because he talks to me about this issue at every available opportunity—we are determined to make sure that more of the value of that entire process remains in the UK, which is why we are putting £50 million on the table for exactly that sort of development work.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

The Royal Mail sorting offices in my patch are in absolute chaos—they are in meltdown—and I am really concerned that someone will end up in a tragic situation because of the lack of service. I have met Royal Mail on numerous occasions and there has been no change whatsoever—in fact, the service is getting worse. What can the Minister do to remedy the situation before somebody needs to be held accountable for a very serious situation?

[Kate Dearden]

I share my hon. Friend’s frustrations and concerns. Whether it is the biggest issue in my inbox and my constituency or from what I have heard from colleagues across the House, it is clear that Royal Mail has to do better, and I have been frank in my discussions with Royal Mail’s chief executive officer that it must deliver improvements at a much quicker pace. I will continue working with my hon. Friend to ensure that we can deliver for his constituents and those across the country who need a reliable postal service.

Draft Code of Practice on the Right of Trade Unions to Access Workplaces Draft Trade Unions (Right to Access Workplaces) Regulations 2026

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2026 General Committees

[Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)]

I should start by declaring my interests as set out in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the Minister for her engagement on these issues with the trade union movement and those of us who are trade union MPs, and for continuing to champion this agenda in Government. I also congratulate her on her recent promotion.

I wanted to note how important employment access rights are. Contrary to what the Opposition spokesperson has said, those of us who sit on the Business and Trade Committee did a careful examination of the access rights, and when asked, the business representatives that joined us on our panel representing hospitality and retail agreed that the cost of facilitating access would be basically negligible. It is clear that trade union access to workplaces and trade union recognition bring significant benefits to workers in all sizes of workplace, not least that they are more likely to be better paid and work in safer and more family friendly workplaces.

Turning to these regulations specifically, the right of access was a clear manifesto commitment and we must deliver it in a way that is meaningful and effective in practice, knowing that hostile employers with deep pockets and access to specialist lawyers will push back hard. That is why I am here today: because I still have some concerns about the code of practice and the regulations.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to review and consult on these measures shortly after implementation to make sure that we get them right. On enforcement, the proposed cap on fines of £500,000 is unlikely to act as an effective deterrent for some of the world’s largest corporations. I know, having welcomed the valiant GMB members of BHX5, Amazon’s Coventry warehouse, to Parliament and to the Select Committee, that Ministers should seriously consider replacing it with penalties based on a percentage of global turnover such as in the enforcement regime for GDPR breaches. That will provide a more proper deterrent and stop US-style union busting coming over here.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

I refer Members to my declaration of interests; I am secretary of the trade union group of Labour MPs, Mr Stringer. Does my hon. Friend recognise that these union-busting firms in America—Amazon, for example—paid up to $14.2 million to bust unions and refuse union access? That is one of the reasons why we have to make sure that the £500,000 cap has the total review and overhaul it needs to protect workers in the workplace.

[Antonia Bance]

I agree with my hon. Friend, as he would expect. He is right to raise the scale of investment that countries such as Amazon have made in union busting. The Amazon executives who joined us at the Business and Trade Committee two years ago seemed barely familiar with UK employment rights legislation and the UK labour market environment. We do not want US-style union busting in the United Kingdom.

There is a real risk that hostile employers could use vexatious complaints as a tactic to impede union access to workplaces and it cannot be right that unions might be fined for going to talk to workers. It should also not be the case that unions should have to bear the cost of expensive legal advice to enforce access rights or defend themselves against vexatious complaints. If the employers are found to have broken the code of practice, the fines are paid to the Treasury rather than the workers or unions who have suffered the detriment. As Members would expect, I do not think that we should exempt smaller workplaces and we should amp up workers’ protection from victimisation and stop workers losing pay if they engage with unions during the access process. Model access agreements should include clear protections on those points.

I am so glad that Ministers have promised a review and consultation shortly after the implementation of these regulations. I strongly welcome that commitment. The review must lead swiftly to strengthened regulations and a strengthened code of practice. The right of access is critical to improving life at work and we must ensure that those rights work well in practice, as intended in the manifesto that Labour MPs stood on.

Draft Code of Practice on the Right of Trade Unions to Access Workplaces; Draft Trade Unions (Right to Access Workplaces) Regulations 2026

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2026 General Committees

[Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)]

I should start by declaring my interests as set out in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the Minister for her engagement on these issues with the trade union movement and those of us who are trade union MPs, and for continuing to champion this agenda in Government. I also congratulate her on her recent promotion.

I wanted to note how important employment access rights are. Contrary to what the Opposition spokesperson has said, those of us who sit on the Business and Trade Committee did a careful examination of the access rights, and when asked, the business representatives that joined us on our panel representing hospitality and retail agreed that the cost of facilitating access would be basically negligible. It is clear that trade union access to workplaces and trade union recognition bring significant benefits to workers in all sizes of workplace, not least that they are more likely to be better paid and work in safer and more family friendly workplaces.

Turning to these regulations specifically, the right of access was a clear manifesto commitment and we must deliver it in a way that is meaningful and effective in practice, knowing that hostile employers with deep pockets and access to specialist lawyers will push back hard. That is why I am here today: because I still have some concerns about the code of practice and the regulations.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to review and consult on these measures shortly after implementation to make sure that we get them right. On enforcement, the proposed cap on fines of £500,000 is unlikely to act as an effective deterrent for some of the world’s largest corporations. I know, having welcomed the valiant GMB members of BHX5, Amazon’s Coventry warehouse, to Parliament and to the Select Committee, that Ministers should seriously consider replacing it with penalties based on a percentage of global turnover such as in the enforcement regime for GDPR breaches. That will provide a more proper deterrent and stop US-style union busting coming over here.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

I refer Members to my declaration of interests; I am secretary of the trade union group of Labour MPs, Mr Stringer. Does my hon. Friend recognise that these union-busting firms in America—Amazon, for example—paid up to $14.2 million to bust unions and refuse union access? That is one of the reasons why we have to make sure that the £500,000 cap has the total review and overhaul it needs to protect workers in the workplace.

[Antonia Bance]

I agree with my hon. Friend, as he would expect. He is right to raise the scale of investment that countries such as Amazon have made in union busting. The Amazon executives who joined us at the Business and Trade Committee two years ago seemed barely familiar with UK employment rights legislation and the UK labour market environment. We do not want US-style union busting in the United Kingdom.

There is a real risk that hostile employers could use vexatious complaints as a tactic to impede union access to workplaces and it cannot be right that unions might be fined for going to talk to workers. It should also not be the case that unions should have to bear the cost of expensive legal advice to enforce access rights or defend themselves against vexatious complaints. If the employers are found to have broken the code of practice, the fines are paid to the Treasury rather than the workers or unions who have suffered the detriment. As Members would expect, I do not think that we should exempt smaller workplaces and we should amp up workers’ protection from victimisation and stop workers losing pay if they engage with unions during the access process. Model access agreements should include clear protections on those points.

I am so glad that Ministers have promised a review and consultation shortly after the implementation of these regulations. I strongly welcome that commitment. The review must lead swiftly to strengthened regulations and a strengthened code of practice. The right of access is critical to improving life at work and we must ensure that those rights work well in practice, as intended in the manifesto that Labour MPs stood on.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

It is good to see the hon. Gentleman again in the same session—I suggest that he buy a lottery ticket tonight, because he is certainly having a lot of success in the draw. I can assure him that we are investing in small and medium-sized enterprises, and we have funding targeted at helping young people to start their own businesses. He lists some of the perceived challenges in the economy at the minute. Do not forget that youth unemployment went up by 250,000 in the years leading up to the general election without all the things that the Conservatives keep mentioning we are doing, such as giving rights and delivering investment into the economy.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

T2. A small coach operator in my constituency of Blyth and Ashington has local authority school contracts, and he has seen the price that he pays for fuel increase by 38% per month, without any additional support from the council. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the potential to extend schemes that support other fuel-intensive businesses to those tasked with getting our children to school?

[Peter Kyle]

I pay tribute to the business in my hon. Friend’s constituency that he advocates for. Businesses around the country are paying the price of, and having to adapt to the challenges posed by, the Iran war. It is a good job that we have a Prime Minister who kept us out of the war—those on the Conservative Benches would have plunged us into it and made things even more difficult for businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency and across the country. On his specific question, I can tell him that we are engaging regularly with refiners, importers and distributors to ensure that any emerging risks are identified and managed properly.

British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lee Anderson]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Members of both schemes need the justice that they deserve.

I live in a coalmining community; I was born there, and I have lived there all my life. I feel incredibly proud of the contribution that my community has made to this country, but I feel incredibly sad when I look at what has happened since all the pits closed in the ’80s and ’90s. As I said, that is because of union leaders and politicians in this place who destroyed our industry, and they will never be forgiven for doing that. However, politicians in this place now have a chance to make some amends and give the miners the justice that they deserve.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

A number of years ago, the Business and Trade Committee came forward with recommendations, which were totally ignored by the Government of the day. The Labour party has been in office for just under two years and has made tremendous strides, which has had a huge impact on members of both schemes. Does the hon. Member agree that is the case?

[Lee Anderson]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and I agree 100% with the point he has made.

I thank all Members who have turned up tonight—I would have expected a few more, because there are probably 200 coalfield constituencies in this country. Please, Minister, give justice for the miners.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris McDonald]

Like my hon. Friend, I sincerely hope that these changes will permanently right the wrongs. It is important that we think carefully about moving as much money as possible out of the scheme, but also ensuring that there are sufficient funds to pay existing pensions.

Let me briefly raise the issue of the mineworkers’ pension scheme. The Government are taking a similar approach to both schemes. In 2024 they transferred the mineworkers pension scheme reserve, increasing pensions by 32%, but I want to reassure members of that scheme that I am also considering proposals for future arrangements put forward by their trustees. Those proposals could further enhance members’ benefits, and we are seeking to do that as swiftly as possible, while also managing the future funding risks.

[Ian Lavery]

I should declare an interest, as probably the only deferred member of the mineworkers’ pension scheme left in the Commons. There is a perception that the Government treat the BCSSS differently from the MPS. There is a belief that some have received preferential treatment—better treatment than others. When the Minister is negotiating with the trustees from both parties, will he ensure that there is equality of justice, across the board, for members of both schemes?

[Chris McDonald]

I am extremely pleased that my hon. Friend has raised that issue, because I know that it concerns members of, particularly, the mineworkers’ pension scheme and people in those communities. I want to reassure members of the mineworkers’ pension scheme that I am endeavouring to ensure that we get as much money out of the scheme as possible. The issue of equality does concern me. However, I am sure my hon. Friend will understand that in the case of both schemes my aim has been to move as much money out as possible, as quickly as possible, for all those members.

I do not see this as a divisive issue between two parts of the mining community, because ultimately both parts of the mining community, whichever scheme they were in, were disadvantaged by Governments of the time. I will take forward the proposals from the trustees, which I hope will further enhance members’ benefits. I want to reassure my hon. Friend, and other members of the mineworkers’ pension scheme, that my top priority is to reach agreement on how best to enhance these pensions as swiftly as possible, so that we can get that funding into the pockets of scheme members.

I opened my speech with some words about the Easington colliery disaster, and I mentioned the Durham miners gala. There is a miners memorial in Durham cathedral, and the words on that memorial are sung by the cathedral choir at the miners festival service on gala day every year, as they will be this year, in a few weeks’ time. I shall be there, playing in the cathedral with my band, and I thought that this might be a suitable moment for us to mark the Easington pit disaster ourselves, here in the House. So I simply say to Members:

“Remember before God the Durham miners who have given their lives in the pits of this county”.

Question put and agreed to.

General Strike Centenary Commemorations

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

I declare an interest, as I spent most of my life—31 years—in the coal industry before I became a Member of Parliament. I believe I am the only coalminer in the Commons who worked under the North sea. In this place, we had 70 to 80 miners representing the Labour party at one time—it is strange how things change.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) on securing this debate and the eloquent way he presented a fantastic contribution. It is important that in this place we recognise that it has been 100 years since the famous general strike of 1926. People have different views on what it was about—they really have—but as my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) said, the issue can be summed up in one sentence:

“Not a penny off the day, not a minute on the day”.

That is the crux of the 1926 dispute.

We have to think about and remember the conditions of the miners. The conditions were atrocious and poverty was rife. We then had, after the first world war, the mine owners reducing the wages of the miners by almost 50% because of what was happening globally with coal trading. The owners wanted to maintain their huge profits, and the only way they could do that was by taking it off the miners, who could not actually feed their kids. That was what the strike was about.

People say the strike was about the Labour party—the party I have been a member of for more than 40 years —but history shows that it was really about the Government worrying about the miners; that they were revolutionaries who wanted to change the Government. That might have been partially true, but the real reason for the 1926 dispute was that miners, working seven days a week, had money taken off them—up to 50%—and there was a further attempt to reduce their wages by 13.5%. The rich coal owners used global issues to sustain their profits on the backs of the hard-working miners. It was not for lack of negotiations; plenty of negotiations went on at national level with the TUC and the Government, but they failed.

The Government had prepared well. It was similar in many ways to the dispute of 1984-85, of which I am apparently a veteran, because I was on strike for the whole duration of the dispute, as were my family and friends. When you get classed as a veteran, you really understand how old you are getting. It is not just the grey hair; it is the sore knees and the bad fingers—all of it. What did the Government do in 1926? They prepared. They set up an organisation for the maintenance of supplies, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield. They recruited hundreds, if not thousands, of special constables, and ensured that there were months of coal reserves available. The Government were ready to take on the miners.

What the press and the Government said—which was what the TUC and the Labour party were frightened of—was that they were revolutionary miners, but those miners were fighting not even for decent wages, but to maintain what they had and to ensure that the coal owners paid people correctly. What is interesting is that King George V said:

“Try living on their wages before you judge them.”

I am not a monarchist—the House knows that I am not—but it is very interesting that the King was actually supporting the miners at that point in time.

While the great strike itself lasted just over a week, miners stayed out for months. In the north-east, Chopwell miners in Gateshead were famously locked out for 17 months. In rural Northumberland, in the forgotten community of Plashetts—now below the Kielder reservoir —the miners lasted for months and months longer.

I want to refer to a key moment in my area, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) has also mentioned. It was in her constituency; I can see it from my bedroom window. I represented the people who derailed the Flying Scotsman because they were part of my union, the Mineworkers’ Federation of Great Britain. I was proud to be the general secretary of the Northumberland area of the National Union of Mineworkers, and I was proud to be the president of that union. These are my people.

We have to remember these people. I will mention their names shortly. On 10 May 1926, the miners at Cramlington accidentally derailed the Flying Scotsman, a coal train that they believed was being powered by blackleg labour. The crash resulted in only one minor injury, some spilt milk churns and a goods van was damaged, but it became national news. Warnings, including the waving of a red handkerchief, were given, but the inexperienced crew were unable to respond. The train was actually able to slow down. The miners themselves decided that they would sabotage this blackleg truck of coal. They took a few rails from the line, and the train skewed off it. There is a great play, by the way, called “The Cramlington Train Wreckers”, produced by a chap called Ed Waugh, who is from the north-east. If anybody gets the opportunity to see the play, they should do so.

The situation was untenable. There were desperate consequences. The Government, looking for answers, launched an investigation that swiftly escalated into what can only be described as a witch hunt. On the night of 5 June 1926, miners were unceremoniously dragged out of their beds and homes and arrested. The Mineworkers’ Federation of Great Britain was very much unaware of this, and the eight mineworkers who were arrested were put on trial without any defence at all, while the Government had professional prosecutors. The witnesses admitted to lying to police at first, calling into question their reliability. In fact, one defendant was partially deaf and could not even hear what was going on in the courtroom.

Despite that, the eight defendants were sentenced to up to eight years in a first offenders prison. They were separated and sent to Maidstone Prison, more than 300 miles away from their homes. There was an instant campaign for their release, which was partially successful. However, innocent men were jailed. Even now, a hundred years later, no apology has been given whatsoever. These people were Labour men. They were hard workers. They were grafters. They did not want anything other than fairness and dignity in their lives—decent wages and terms and conditions. Many of their families still live in south-east Northumberland. I want to ask the Minister tonight to commit to a posthumous pardon for these men who were so badly treated more than 100 years ago. They were William Gordon Stephenson, Robert Harbottle, Joseph Wallace, Oliver Sanderson, William Muckle, James Ellison, Arthur Wilson and Thomas Roberts. They all lived in the Cramlington area and ranged from age 21 to 29.

Remember, colleagues, that they did not demand the world. These were humble individuals who only wanted dignity—

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

All they wanted was dignity, an existence, food and a roof over their heads:

“Not a penny off the pay, not a minute on the day.”

Single Status of Worker

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, as ever, Mr Efford. I refer to my declaration of interests on my trade union membership and trade union support in the general election.

The Conservative ethos of unhindered market determination meant that historical antagonism to the trade unions, which are seen as an unholy impediment to the favoured goal of a flexible labour market, intensified as the Tories continued to try to curtail their power. It became the common theme of Governments here and elsewhere—up until, of course, the election of the Labour Government in 2024. The market had to be what determined the wages and conditions of ordinary working individuals, not collective bargaining or negotiations with unions. Management would be totally free to pay what the individual worker is worth. That is worth recognising at the outset.

They reckon that Thatcher’s greatest achievement was not Tony Blair, as she once declared; her most profound legacy was the gig economy. The widespread acceptance of insecure, casual employment is one of the cornerstones of the UK economy. What an absolute disaster. The gig economy was given legal underpinning by the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and the Employment Rights Act 1996, which defined the two levels of employment status: the employee, with full legal and contractual rights, and the worker, who enjoyed only minimal legal protections. The exploitative use of casual labour was basically given legal legitimacy. That was a crime against ordinary working people.

Under those Acts, a worker is said to have a more casual, less structured work pattern—for example, zero-hours contracts. They are usually required to do the work themselves, and cannot ask somebody else to cover for them. They technically do not have to make themselves available to work, but in reality the fear of no further hours being offered if they turn down a request that they work has made this a legal fiction in many cases.

Look at the economic effects of the widespread employment of those legally characterised as workers. It is blatantly obvious that good, long-term jobs have been replaced by low-paid, minimum wage jobs. Many of those who have been forced to work in the large casual work sector require benefits to survive. Employers’ profits are being subsidised by everybody in this room—by the taxpayer. Cheap labour has been a major cause of a lack of investment in capital and in research and development, resulting in poor productivity growth. It is hard for workers to achieve union recognition as they are without unfair dismissal protection, leading to even weaker union density in key industries—again, a key goal of the Conservatives throughout their history.

I would like to share some of the difficulties suffered by individuals employed as workers. Many have been on zero-hours contracts and do not know what money they will earn each month. We understand the problems that brings: they have no job security and can be dismissed without notice, they are not entitled to redundancy pay, and some employers employ a pool of workers who work besides those with employee status, so that there can be mass redundancies and avoid statutory consultations and legal obligations to discuss alternative employment with those affected—they can freely choose those with worker status.

Workers can be wrongly classified as being self-employed—the well-known bogus self-employed—a tactic used to avoid national insurance contributions, stakeholder pension contributions and so on. It is sometimes hard to spot because of legal complexities. If, on paper, somebody hired to work can choose somebody else to do that work for them, the so-called substitution clause means that that individual will legally be given self-employed status and have no employment rights whatsoever. It is often hard to prove the false nature of the written clause, but in reality, it is well known that no one in the firm would dare to rely on these clauses for, say, an extra day off.

[Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an important point about the exploitation of workers with very little legal protection. Does he agree that it must be incumbent on all employees to have union recognition, whereby the voices of employees, no matter how small the organisation, are heard and can be part of any action that can be taken against rogue employers? There are some very good employers that recognise unions and work with them to achieve the best, but many do not recognise unions and would rather have working conditions that take us back more than 100 years, before the work of trade unions had even started.

[Ian Lavery]

I fully agree with the sentiments outlined by my hon. Friend.

I will move on to a summary of the legal rights denied to people classified as workers under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and the Employment Rights Act 1996: protection against unfair dismissal after six months; the right to guaranteed hours; the right to maternity pay; the right to paternity leave; protection against unfair redundancy selection; the right to redundancy pay; access to statutory union recognition procedures; and the ability to request family-friendly flexible hours. Those are the rights that are being denied to workers at this moment in time.

What are we really asking for? There must be a renewed push for the full implementation of Labour’s manifesto commitment to merge the employed and worker tiers into one single legal category of employee with full legal employment rights. We need an end to the bogus self-employment tactics that unscrupulous employers deploy. The law should not recognise the legitimacy of any substitution clause.

The best means of achieving a clear distinction between a new employee with single status and those who are actually self-employed is to use the formula proposed in Lord Hendy’s single status Bill of 2023-24, which was introduced in the Lords. That would not only merge employees and workers into a single status of employee; legal employment rights would also end the bogus self-employment tactics that employers use to deny people the higher employee status. Under Lord Hendy’s Bill, a person would be deemed to be self-employed only if there was clear evidence that he or she was genuinely operating a business on his or her own account. Evidence such as business accounts, advertising and the number of clients or customers would be needed to prove true engagement for services by a self-employed person.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) for bringing this timely debate to the House. I also thank the Minister for her sterling work on the employment Bill. It was an excellent Bill. It could be a lot better; it could be a lot stronger—to be honest, we need an employment Bill 2.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the arguments against single worker status is that of flexibility, particularly for young people who want to work seasonally, as happens in my constituency in Cornwall? I therefore ask the Minister to confirm that that option still remains open if a person remains an employee under our new Employment Rights Act. There is misunderstanding about that, and it is really important that people realise that there is the option under the Act to retain flexibility without the need for self-employment status.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

I am sure the Minister will respond to that question.

I want to say a huge thank you to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) for the sterling work that he has done. A lot more work needs to be done, but working people in this country are a lot better off now since the election of the Labour Government in 2024 than they ever were before. The Employment Rights Act transforms the lives of ordinary working people, but we must work at it and it must go a lot further. This debate is about the differences between an employee and a worker, and we must change that as rapidly as possible.