Post Office Board and Governance

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 28th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I think on two occasions Mr Staunton lobbied for a pay increase for Mr Read. He sought to double the overall package of Mr Read on those occasions.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Yesterday’s Committee meeting was bizarre in many ways. It was five hours long and, as happens only rarely, the people in front of the inquiry had to swear on the Holy Bible. That is how bad it was. The recently dismissed former chairman revealed a number of things that were quite alarming. First, he revealed that the current chief executive is under investigation. Perhaps the Minister can explain why we were not aware of that. Secondly, he revealed that the current chief executive had threatened to resign on more than four occasions, not because of the lack of progress on any financial redress for postmasters and postmistresses, but because he said his wages were too low. The chief executive also said that he was proud that he had a hardship fund for workers in the Post Office. Can the Minister clarify whether there has been an approach by anyone on behalf of the current chief executive for a pay rise, and what the response was?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

First, may I correct the record? In response to the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), I said that the fixed sum award was £650,000; it is £600,000.

It would be wrong to disclose an investigation into somebody’s conduct before that investigation had concluded. It would be extraordinary to do that in any work context, be it in the public or private sector. I am happy to have a conversation with the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) about the hardship fund. If he is talking about the Post Office paying salaries to postmasters, most postmasters are self-employed, not paid a salary directly, and have a number of different streams of income into their business. These are businesses in their own right, of course, but there is a hardship fund for certain postmasters in certain situations.

Post Office Management Culture

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Thursday 8th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Today’s debate is extremely timely and important. It is harrowing to listen to cases from across the UK, and it takes time for it to sink in how the cover-up of this scandal has cost the lives of ordinary, hard-working people who only wanted to provide for their families by working for their communities in post offices. We have to think about how many of those people have been tret, not just by the Post Office but by the Government and Fujitsu. Many of them have had extreme difficulties in employment. They were not just betrayed but sent to prison for crimes that they did not commit. They knew they were innocent; more importantly, the people who sent them there knew that they were innocent as well. We need a lot of answers. More and more is coming to the fore every day with regard to this scandal.

Mention has been made of who knew about this. The Government knew about it, Fujitsu knew about it, and the Post Office knew about it; yet they still sent investigators into sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses’ post offices. They investigated people, charged people, and devastated people’s lives. They acted like the Gestapo. They turned up on the day and closed post offices down. That is the Post Office management culture, and it needs to be addressed.

I am not sure how we can compensate anybody. How can we compensate the family of a woman or man who committed suicide as a result of the pressure that they were put under by the Government, the Post Office and investigators? How do we compensate people for the death of a loved one who was the breadwinner in the family, and decided that their only option was to take their own life? It is unimaginable. We cannot put ourselves in their shoes.

What about the men and women who went to prison because they had supposedly falsified accounts and committed theft? They were imprisoned with child-killers and rapists for things they had not done. Not only did they know they had not done them; the Government and the Post Office knew it too. Fujitsu knew what was happening behind the scenes. This does not seem like the country I am very proud of—what happened with the Government behind the scenes. It is very murky and sinister. At the same time, the Government and the Post Office were prosecuting people with evidence from Fujitsu, and people were being imprisoned and taking their own lives. Frankly, it is enough to make us cry.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman is rightly making a typically impassioned speech. I have been very careful throughout the whole time I have been involved in this matter, which is over four years, as a Back-Bencher and a Front-Bencher, not to play any kind of party politics with it. I put it on the record that the issues occurred under a series of Governments: the Labour Government, the coalition Government and the current Government. It is important that we look at the matter on a cross-party basis and seek to resolve it as such. I am keen to work with him on that basis.

[Ian Lavery]

I thank the Minister for that intervention, and I agree. I have a lot of time for him. We have had conversations about this matter and many others. As he will notice if he looks in Hansard, I have not been party political. I have said “the Government”. He is correct to point out that there have been Governments of different colours throughout the period.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Lavery]

The hon. Gentleman has just come in, but of course I will.

[Richard Graham]

The hon. Gentleman is making some very good points, as did the hon. Members for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) and for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows). All of us who have been in the House for a while share the feelings that all three Members have expressed of horror and great anxiety, given the cases that we are dealing with. However, roughly 3,000 people work for Post Office Ltd, including all those working in Crown post offices, like the one in my constituency of Gloucester. It is important that we try to separate things out in our minds before we know from the inquiry precisely where guilt lies and where charges and prosecutions will come, so that we do not label everybody within Post Office Ltd with the accusations that are rightly being made in the House today.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. Before we proceed, I heard what the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) said, and I heard the Chairman of Ways and Means’ admonition of another hon. Member earlier. The difference in this case is that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) was here for the start of the speech. That said, I personally believe that there is a prerequisite for Members, whenever they can, to be in from the start of a debate and to hear the whole debate.

[Ian Lavery]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, and nothing I have said up until now has criticised everyone in the Post Office. We have some fantastic employees in the Post Office, but I am not going to say the same thing about the executive team in the Post Office. I refuse to accept that things have changed, because the management culture within the Post Office has not changed one iota. However, I agree that we have to look forward and take the Post Office forward.

I mentioned that there might or might not be charges in the future, but too many people have been charged already. This whole Horizon scandal is a result of people being sent to prison, people being traumatised and people—kids, men and women—having their lives destroyed because people knew there was something happening at the Post Office.

I sit on the Business and Trade Committee, and the chief executive of the Post Office has been to the House a couple of times. I must be honest: he shows no remorse whatsoever. He believes that, because he was not there at the time, that is right. This individual’s wage is, I think, about £344,000 a year. I asked him, “Why are you getting a bonus in excess of £145,000 in addition to your salary? What makes you so special?” He could not answer. That is at a time when people have suffered so greatly and the Post Office and the Government are reluctant even now to address many people who have suffered as a consequence of this scandal.

I will come on shortly to the question of who has been missed in the compensation. There are three packages, and I have had a chat with the Minister—I am going to call him my hon. Friend, and why not?—about this very issue. I have three heartbreaking examples, and my understanding is that it will be very difficult for these individuals to claim any compensation whatsoever.

The culture has not changed; there has always been a serious cultural problem in the Post Office, which obviously came to the fore with the abuse of power blatantly displayed during the Horizon scandal. As I mentioned before, the management structure, the governance and the culture largely remain unreformed. We have people in post offices now suffering greatly because of low wages. They are not getting the wages from the Post Office to make ends meet. Those people are mainly in newsagents and Spar shops and so on. That is wrong when, as I mentioned before, at the same time Post Office executives are being awarded bonuses of tens of thousands—if not hundreds of thousands—of pounds. That has to be looked at.

It has been suggested, as the Minister will be aware, that a lot of the bonuses that have been paid are for progress on the Horizon scandal. How can anybody get a bonus for that? Is a bonus not supposed to be for additional production or good work? How can the chief executive get a bonus of hundreds of thousands of pounds while this is happening? Who do we blame for that? We have to look at how these remuneration packages are settled and who benefits. We cannot have people getting hundreds of thousands of pounds in one hand and bonuses of 10 times what ordinary sub-postmasters or sub-postmistresses, or postal workers, are getting in the other. It is just not correct. Bonuses should not be paid for failure, and that is what is happening here.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, on investigation, it was found that the Horizon system had a suspense account? A suspense account in an accounting package is where transactions are put before they are properly allotted. At the end of most years, there was more than £1 million retained in the suspense account, which was kept for four years and then added back to profit and never resolved.

[Ian Lavery]

Not only that, but Jo Hamilton had to pay £36,000 back, even though she knew she was in the right. I asked Nick Read, the chief executive of the Post Office, whether it was a possibility that the money paid back by a number of the victims would have been in a place where it could have provided bonuses for senior executives. How perverse is that? The answer from the chief executive, when I pressed him and pressed him, was that yes, it was a possibility, but he did not know where the money actually went. That in itself is so bad that it beggars belief.

Fujitsu, meanwhile, denied any knowledge of bugs or any wrongdoing, but actually knew quite the opposite, and it supplied evidence to the Post Office to prosecute individuals. How bad is that situation? This is not a spy movie—it is worse than a spy movie. They had a dark room in Fujitsu where its employees were communicating with the Horizon computer system in post offices up and down the country. Fujitsu denied it all along, saying that it was impossible it could ever happen, yet people there were changing the amounts of money openly. The Government knew. Fujitsu knew, because it had the operation in its own offices, with employees changing facts and figures in the accounts of ordinary hard-working individuals—again, spy movie stuff. It is unbelievable that that could be the case.

Is it not unreal to think that none of this would have come about if not for the ITV dramatisation, “Mr Bates vs The Post Office”? We would not be discussing it in this Chamber, because it would have been kicked into the long grass. The people would all have suffered the same—those who are in prison, the families who have been destroyed, and the kids who have been brought up with the criticism and abuse that their parents were thieves —but it would not have been unearthed.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

There is no doubt that the ITV series has rightly heightened awareness both in this House and further afield, and I welcome that, but much work was going on in this space before it aired, including on how we can overturn more convictions on a blanket basis. I was working on that with the advisory board before the series aired, so it is not right to say that we would not have got to this position without it. We probably would not have got here as quickly, but the hon. Gentleman must concede that this work has been going on for years—although I welcome the fact that it is happening more rapidly now.

[Ian Lavery]

I thank the Minister for that clarification. Forgive me, Mr Deputy Speaker, if I suggested that nothing at all had happened, because I know that the Minister, the all-party parliamentary group, the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) and others have been working on the matter assiduously. However, as the Minister said, we might not otherwise have been at this stage. We might not have got Fujitsu to say for the first time, “Yes, we are sorry,” and the Post Office might not have started to admit that it had pursued wrongful or unsafe prosecutions. But we are where we are. I would not want to mislead anyone in the debate.

I have three brief examples. These people, Minister, were heavily involved with Horizon and the Post Office, and suffered greatly. It causes me real heartbreak, to be honest. The first example is that of Janine, a lady from my constituency who has sadly passed on; no one came to see me about her case until they saw the ITV documentary. Her husband simply cried for the entire hour that I sat with him. He wanted justice for Janine, who sadly died of covid. He is hoping for some sort of justice now.

Janine was employed in a post office in a newsagents, which is a regular thing up and down the country. Her contract with the newsagents said that any shortfall in the post office finances must be made up by her. She and another person were employed by the newsagents, and then there was the sub-postmaster or mistress— I am not sure which it was on this occasion. Janine was accused of stealing £25,000, even though she had not seen that amount of money before. The Post Office investigators came to the newsagents and basically tret her like a common thief. The pressure was put on: “We are going to charge you with theft and you are going to prison.”

Janine was absolutely devastated. She pleaded guilty. Then, she sat back and realised, “Why should I be pleading guilty when I am not guilty?”. It cost her and her family a small fortune to take the case back to court and have the guilty verdict rescinded. The Post Office then said, “Okay, you can accept the lesser charge of false accounting and pay the money back.” She refused. All this cost her £15,000 in legal fees—these are just ordinary working people in the community. She was then informed that if she paid the £25,000 back, the Post Office would drop the charges. That is what happened: she paid the money back. Unfortunately, by the day she sadly passed on, she and her family had lost everything they had.

That needs scrutiny. We need to look at the management culture. What on earth was going on at the Post Office during this thing? Who directed the investigators to go to those post offices and treat people the way they were tret in the investigations? They knew at the time that the allegations were false. That is the thing that I have reiterated and will continue to reiterate: they knew that the allegations were in many ways false, unfounded, unfair. Maybe the investigators did not, but the people at the top of the Post Office certainly knew; people in government knew. That cannot be right. Janine’s husband has written and submitted a really heart-rending letter, but under the current schemes, he is unlikely to be able to claim any money. How can that be just? I will follow that up with the Minister.

The second example is that of a man who wrote to us saying: “I’ve got a massive problem. I’m like lots of other sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses. We work at the very heart of the community. It’s where people used to come to talk. We were trusted, well respected, listened to.” He was seeing mistake after mistake crop up on his computer week after week, but rather than inform the Post Office, he was putting money in week by week to balance the accounts, which had been altered by somebody at the Fujitsu head office.

This individual says that he simply could not stand the idea that anybody would think him in the slightest—in the remotest sense—a thief. He has paid tens of thousands of pounds, if we aggregate the money that he paid week by week. There is no way that he or hundreds of other employees have the opportunity or ability to claim compensation at this moment. That begs the question of whether the Post Office, together with the Government, will write to every single person who was a sub-postmaster between 1998 and now to ask them if they are aware of anyone who might have put their own money—out of their own backside pocket, out of their family’s savings—into balancing the accounts. There should be consideration of compensation for such individuals. The Post Office will have all the details of people in those roles who claimed to have used finances from their own back pocket.

I will briefly mention the last example. I have not actually seen these individuals—they are coming to see us next week—but I have been told by one of their relations that they were involved in the Horizon scandal and paid £25,000. That sum crops up time and again. They paid that just to save their name. Nothing went to court—nothing happened—but they paid the money, despite the fact that they were innocent. They thought that because they paid the money, the matter would go away, and there is very little opportunity for people like them to reclaim their money. It is unfair. Never mind them stealing money off the Post Office; the Post Office has stolen money off hard-working people. That should be recognised.

It would be helpful if the Post Office and the Government could listen to what other people have to say. This is not just about those who were convicted or prosecuted; there are more people who were not convicted or prosecuted, but who are out of pocket and have had their life destroyed as a consequence of the Post Office Horizon scandal. We need to look at how that can be addressed. Those people deserve compensation. As the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw said, this scandal is appalling. It is disgraceful, shameful, and a stain on all of us. I agree with the Minister that this is a cross-party issue. We have the opportunity to put things right, so let us do it. Let us look after the people whose only crime was going to work and looking after their family.

PANS and PANDAS

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2023 Westminster Hall

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Thank you for allowing me to contribute to the debate, Mr Dowd. I apologise for being late; I was in an important Delegated Legislation Committee, but I am extremely pleased that the debate is happening and I thought that it was important to try to get here to hear everything that has been said.

I thank the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for securing this debate to raise awareness of PANS/PANDAS, which sadly continues to be a poorly understood and widely ignored condition. Public awareness of this extremely serious condition remains incredibly low, despite the best efforts of campaigners, who I think we all agree do a brilliant job. Parents and children have to deal with the often severe symptoms of PANS/PANDAS, which are wide-ranging—that is clear from what has been said today—and can cause immense disruption that is difficult to live with. They also face barriers across our health system to get the support they need, as a result of the condition not being fully recognised, or perhaps not being taken as seriously as it needs to be.

I freely admit that I was not aware of the condition until relatively recently, when a constituent approached my office in relation to a child suffering from what she believed to be PANS/PANDAS. The child had been a happy, healthy, normal toddler but, following a bout of chicken pox at a young age, began displaying a number of unusual and alarming symptoms, almost out of nowhere. The symptoms persisted for the next seven years, curiously flaring up with each new infection. Symptoms include high levels of anxiety, aggression, reversion of speech and language, issues around food, obsessive behaviours, and losing the ability to write, among many other things.

Things came to head during the pandemic, when the child contracted covid alongside an infection in his nose. During the nine months that the infection persisted, the child could barely perform the most basic functions. They would get extremely upset and be troubled by persistent anxiety, or become aggressive, angry and destructive. They lost the ability to write, could hardly speak and struggled to eat. That resulted in a sustained period out of school and, as I am sure everyone here can imagine, immense strain and stress on the child and the rest of the family, as they struggled to control the symptoms and feared what could be causing such erratic and disruptive behaviour.

After nine months, the child finally underwent a procedure to remove the infection from his nose, followed by a course of antibiotics. Remarkably, within a week, he was back in school, reading, writing, socialising with classmates and showing every sign of once again being a happy, healthy child.

It is clear from that experience that PANS/PANDAS, or indeed any kind of infection inducing neuroimmune disorder, would be a strong candidate for diagnosis, yet the family have struggled to get the disorder recognised by clinicians and the NHS, never mind getting anywhere near a diagnosis and a treatment plan. A lack of clinical guidelines means that few clinicians across the NHS have even heard of the disorder. As a result, the tests and support the family so desperately need have not been forthcoming. That is despite the condition’s being recognised by countries across the world and by the World Health Organisation.

The struggle to get a proper diagnosis continues for my constituent. It has been suggested to them that the child may be autistic, but that simply does not stack up with the reality of the symptoms and the circumstances in which they appear. A false diagnosis would prolong the issue, potentially causing more complications, further hardship and distress for a family in desperate need of help and support.

My constituent has been forced to resort to seeking the advice of a private doctor here in London. The cost of travel from my constituency in the north-east, accommodation and the appointment itself is immense, and it is made worse by the pressures of the cost of living crisis. Incurring the cost of treatments that have been shown to be effective for fighting PANS/PANDAS is completely out of the question for my constituent and, I am sure, many other affected families across the country.

It is clear from this testimony and hundreds of others that it is time the NHS began to take the condition seriously and get families the support they need. On PANS/PANDAS Awareness Day back in 2020, PANS PANDAS UK claimed that 42% of paediatricians had never heard of PANS/PANDAS, 47% of people with the condition received no NHS treatment, and 95% said their GP did not suggest PANS/PANDAS when presented with their symptoms.

I am not here to chastise the NHS, which does a fantastic job under extremely difficult circumstances. There is an easy solution that can be worked towards to help the NHS to diagnose and treat patients more efficiently, while getting families the support that they desperately need. That would not only help patients and families to get on with their lives, but save us millions of pounds in the long run. Treatments could reduce the need for extra support and care for children and young people experiencing severe symptoms at a relatively low cost, reducing the strain on the NHS and adult social care budgets.

As more and more stories emerge of children suffering from PANS/PANDAS, it is only a matter of time until we can no longer pretend that the condition does not exist or can be explained away elsewhere. Let us put an end to that as soon as possible, get support to the families who need it and reduce the strain on schools, the NHS and social care services, which are all left to pick up the pieces.

Local Radio: BBC Proposals

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Thursday 22nd June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

May I break it very gently to the House and those following the debate that not everybody listens to Radio 4 or the World Service? As mentioned by many previous speakers in the debate, lots of people depend in many ways on listening to local radio. Local radio is extremely popular in this country, a reminder of our pride in our robust local characters and in local heritage, history and traditions.

I was born in the north-east; I believe it is like nowhere else in the country and it should be celebrated rather than ignored and piled in with the rest of the country as if we are just one big blob. Most speakers have said that people in their regions want to hear the local news of relevance to them told to them by people with the same accents as them. They want to hear about what is happening on their high streets and the local weather—what it will be like tomorrow? People do not want to know what the weather will be in Southend when they live in Newcastle upon Tyne or Northumberland, where I live, where it is misty all the time. Basically, we are being misled. We need to make sure we get this right. The BBC must listen, for heaven’s sake, and understand the value of the crown jewels of local radio, as it has been described.

The right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) mentioned that non-league football plays a huge part in people’s lives. People cannot put on Radio 4 and find out how Ashington or Bedlington have got on. It is fantastic for people when the local radio station has reporters with the same accent as them telling them how the different clubs and teams are doing in the different parts of the region. That is invaluable.

It is good to listen to fantastic journalists with skills and knowledge of their own area telling us what is happening in politics. It is great to be interviewed by people who understand us and who press us on the local issues. It is great in the morning to get a phone call from Alfie Joey from Radio Newcastle asking if I will come on and talk about this, that and the other. It is essential; it is what people want.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) mentioned that we in the north-east have a huge issue with digitalisation. Of course we do; people in the north-east still call the radio “the wireless.” Not everybody uses wi-fi. We have to remember that.

A lot more can be said, but I have fond memories of Radio Newcastle. I remember when my mother used to make the Sunday dinner in the morning to feed seven of us. There was a programme called “Sing something simple”, and we once rang up and said, “Can you give a message to our mother on Mother’s Day?” and Radio Newcastle gave a message to her. She was absolutely past herself; she said, “If I had known my name was going to be on the radio, I would have got my hair done.” That is how much it meant to my mother.

In conclusion, we have some fantastic reporters and fantastic journalists, and the way they are being tret, bullied and intimidated by the BBC is not acceptable. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) suggests that he supports the strikes; I am going to invite him on to the picket line. He cannot deny it; he will have to come. We hope that the BBC will reflect on the fact that local radio is the people’s radio.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We look forward to seeing Mr Walker on the picket line.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 22nd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens]

I thank my constituency neighbour for that excellent intervention, because as my good Friends the Members for Glasgow East and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) indicated earlier, the area of the United Kingdom with the least industrial action is Scotland. That is because there seems to be a mature relationship between employers and trade unions in Scotland—far more mature, it would seem, than in England, for example, where we see Government Ministers bashing trade unions on a daily basis on the sofas of breakfast television.

I want to end my remarks, because I am conscious that others want to speak in this debate. The fact that the Government want to dismiss workers for exercising the human right to withdraw their labour is what makes this an absolutely despicable and disgraceful piece of legislation, which would tie them in with countries such as Russia and Hungary. We might think that those are not examples that the Government should follow. It seems quite frankly bizarre that they do want to follow them. I will be in the No Lobby tonight, because I agree with these Lords amendments.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I would like to declare my interests as a proud trade union member all of my life.

Obviously I want to discuss the amendments from the other place, but I have to say that this should basically be classed as the anti-strike Bill. This is a Bill that very few people want, far less like. Despite the fact that there are very few people on the Government Benches, we will watch them flow through the Lobby tonight—again, to attack working people of this country. Nor should we be surprised by any of this, because when the Government are down—when they are out; when they are under pressure; when they are out of steam and have nothing left to say, after 13 years of destruction of this country—what can bring them together? The answer is attacking trade unions, attacking working people and, we should not forget—and we will never forget—attacking key workers, because that is what this Bill does. It is about culture wars and politics of distraction. Like rats when cornered, they revert to type.

The amendments from the other place are extremely important. The thinking behind each of the amendments is that people understand the real intentions of the Bill. They are not what has been suggested by the Minister and others on the Government Benches. We need to be honest about what the Bill is actually about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the significant amount of industrial unrest over the last several months and, indeed, years, where people do not think they are listened to, the introduction of this legislation will deepen their resolve? They will show by their actions that they will not tolerate an attack on their freedoms and their basic employment and human rights.

[Ian Lavery]

It is extremely important that people understand that once we see nurses, doctors, teachers and key workers facing the sack, there will be resistance in this country. I kid you not, there will be resistance in this country like we have never seen before, because these are basic human rights. We cannot instruct ordinary hard-working people; key workers; the people who got us through the pandemic; the people who put the Great in Great Britain. We cannot, under any circumstances, allow this legislation to sack individuals.

Lords amendment 4 refers to the work notice. My friend, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), eloquently made the point about the notification of a work notice. If someone has not had notification of a work notice, how could they ever be accused of breaching it if they are not aware that they have it? This is pretty simple stuff. I am not a barrister or a solicitor, but I understand it. And you know what, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Members on the Government Benches understand it, too. There is no doubt about that. When those people are asked the following day, “Why weren’t you here? You had a work notice,” and they reply, “I didn’t have one”, they will be told, “You did. How did you not understand that?” They can be sacked for that. Under this legislation, they can be sacked for not adhering to something that they did not even know they were part of. How bad is that?

[Chris Stephens]

It is actually worse than the hon. Gentleman is presenting it, because the person dismissed would not have the right to go to an employment tribunal.

[Ian Lavery]

Absolutely. I fully agree with those sentiments.

When employers are considering who they might wish to give the work notice to, Lords amendment 3 suggests that when deciding whether to identify a person in a work notice, an employer cannot consider whether the person “has or has not” taken part in trade union activities, made use of their services or had a trade union raise issues on their behalf. That amendment should not be needed in the UK in 2023, because everybody clearly understands that if bosses give work notices, they have a clear idea who they will give them to: the trade union reps and the people who do not have a fantastic employment record. That is why that Lords amendment about who the company identifies for a work notice is really important.

In reality, this legislation is simply a battering ram against ordinary working people. I have mentioned the resistance that will be shown in this country if we start sacking the nurses, the teachers and the posties. Blaming the posties for breaking the universal service obligation; blaming the teachers for education in their classes; blaming the nurses for the backlog—you name it, that is what the bosses will do. That will start under this legislation, as they will have the power to sack people. This is a sackers charter, no doubt about that, criminalising our heroic workers.

There will be resistance like we have never seen before. The difference is that the public are on the side of the workers on this one, so be ready. I raise a stark warning: be ready. When the bosses have the books out, ready to sack individuals, and when the Government are telling them who to sack and what the reasons might be, they should be ready for the resistance, because there will be huge issues. How can the Government expect a trade union to take responsibility for individuals who might not want to accept a basic human right? It is bizarre. It is absolutely crazy. I am trying to explain it, but it is very difficult; it is not simple. The trade unions have a huge role to play.

The Bill not only escalates an already febrile atmosphere in this country; it is a vicious attempt the pin the problems that we have on trade unions, from a party that has completely run out of steam. When will the Government start doing their job, for heaven’s sake? How many more hospital appointments need to be set back? How many teachers need to be made redundant or letters and parcels be delivered late before they stop making excuses and demonising workers, and get on with the job that they were elected to do?

[Rachael Maskell]

My hon. Friend is making an outstanding speech about the reality of industrial relations. Does he agree that trade unions do not have any jurisdiction over their members; it is the members who have the jurisdiction over the trade unions? Therefore, it is for the members to decide what action they take or do not take. The Government do not seem to get it.

[Ian Lavery]

My hon. Friend makes a good and valid point that the trade unions are the workers themselves. It is as simple as that.

In conclusion, will Government Members tell us why we are not having a minimum service Bill for non-strike days? In the past year or so, in particular when the paramedics and ambulance workers have gone on strike, efficiency has increased and has been first class on strike days. On non-strike days, like the 360-odd days other than those strike days, unfortunately what we see is people lying on pavements or having heart attacks who cannot get an ambulance. Let us look at a Bill for non-striking days so we can enhance the efficiency of all of the services outlined tonight. If the Minister did that, he would get our support.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank all Members, on both sides of the House, for the robust debate we have had as the legislation has passed through both Houses. It is fair to say that the discussion and debate about the legislation has pretty much divided along party political lines. Our position is that this legislation strikes a balance between the right to strike and the right of the public to go about their daily business and daily lives.

It is also fair to say that we could have chosen an option that went much further. As I said earlier, the USA, Australia and Canada have completely banned strikes in certain sectors, prohibiting them completely. Spain and Belgium have similar legislation on minimum service levels. Indeed, in France there are penalties of up to six months in jail for anyone who is under a requisition notice to return to work.

It is interesting that many Opposition Members have talked about restricting the right to strike. Well, we already restrict the right to strike for the armed forces, the police and prison officers. Will Opposition Members repeal that legislation to allow people who work in those parts of our society to strike? There are already some restrictions; we are putting in place sensible restrictions that are already in place in many other countries.

The guidance from the International Labour Organisation says:

“A minimum service may be set up in the event of a strike, the extent and duration of which might be such as to result in an acute national crisis endangering the normal living conditions of the population.”

It is clear the ILO supports the kinds of measures we are putting in place. I have heard Opposition Members say that no one wants this legislation but interestingly, when surveyed, 56% of the public say that they do, against 31% who do not.

Earlier today, the deputy Leader of the Opposition tweeted her support for the 121 politicians who have condemned the Bill. May I gently urge her to look at some of the people who signed that letter? Some of those signatories are anti-Zelensky, anti-Ukraine, anti-Israel and pro-Russia. I urge her to look at that again and withdraw her tweet.

We believe the legislation strikes the right balance between the right to strike and the rights of the public to go about their daily business and protect their livelihoods. There have been over £3 billion of costs to our economy because of these strikes, which is putting many businesses and many jobs in danger. The Bill presents a fair balance between the rights of workers and the rights of the public.

P&O Ferries Redundancies

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Tuesday 28th March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

In a moment, I will call Ian Lavery to move the motion. I will then call the Minister to respond to the debate, but I think that in between the two Mr McDonald will make a very short speech. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention in our 30-minute debates.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered lessons learned from redundancies at P&O Ferries.

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, with regard to my trade union membership. It is a pleasure, as always, to speak under your chairmanship, Sir Gary.

It is worth looking back at what actually happened to the 786 staff who were dismissed by P&O Ferries and DP World on 17 March 2022. We remember watching staff on the television who reported being sacked in a pre-recorded Zoom call, without prior warning or indeed any consultation whatsoever. P&O had callously prepared beforehand, recruiting handcuff-trained private security guards in balaclavas to frogmarch employees off the P&O vessels.

The P&O chief executive, Peter Hebblethwaite, admitted to the Transport Committee that the company had deliberately ignored the law and that some of the agency crew replacing those sacked would be paid below the minimum wage; and astonishingly, he said that the company would do it again, given the opportunity.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Ian Lavery]

The hon. Gentleman will have to be very brief.

[Jim Shannon]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. Does he not agree that the disgraceful treatment of P&O Ferries staff, which he outlined, has reminded this House of the importance of employment legislation, that any loopholes must be sealed, and that no one should be able treat decent and hardworking people so contemptuously, with no redress and complete legal impunity? As I say, I commend the hon. Gentleman; he does well and congratulations to him on securing this debate.

[Ian Lavery]

I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for that intervention; I will cover the points he has raised.

To get back to Mr Peter Hebblethwaite: Minister, how on earth is he still in position? I must ask that, as my first and probably most interesting question. A man who agreed that he was breaking the law; a man who said that he would not expect the trade unions to agree with what he was doing; a man who said, despite the fact that he was breaking the law, he would do it again —and he is still in position. Why? That is the question.

The right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), the former Prime Minister, claimed from the Dispatch Box on 23 March last year that the Government were taking legal action against P&O Ferries, but they have not done so as yet. So my next question to the Minister must be: why has no action been taken against P&O for how it acted back on 17 March 2022? Parliament must correct that injustice. The purpose of today’s debate is to learn the right lessons from P&O’s breathtaking act of corporate aggression against British workers, and to take the right actions, particularly where they are missing from the Government’s response.

My concern and that of colleagues is that the Government’s responses to date will neither close loopholes nor, crucially, challenge the anti-trade union mindset at the heart of P&O and DP World’s despicable actions. Ex-P&O seafarers and their trade unions—the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, and Nautilus—are increasingly frustrated at the Government’s failure to penalise P&O Ferries, DP World or the flag states involved in this injustice, as early-day motion 954 highlights. As a result, UK seafarers and trade unions across the maritime industry cannot be certain that a similar assault on jobs and employment rights will not happen again.

The first anniversary of the Government’s nine-point plan in response to P&O Ferries is on Thursday. Although the Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023 is welcome, it is unnecessarily narrow and will not come into full legal effect until next year. The Transport Committee has correctly observed that, on its own, the Act

“will not be sufficient to ensure proper treatment of seafarers.”

I ask the Minister: where is the review of the Equality Act 2010 (Work on Ships and Hovercraft) Regulations 2011, which provide limited protection for seafarers from nationality-based pay discrimination? That is what P&O, Irish Ferries and Condor Ferries and other businesses base their model on. That review was supposed to have started by the end of 2020. Minister, when will it start?

For all other employment conditions, including tackling roster patterns of up to 17 weeks on P&O’s fleet, the Government propose a voluntary seafarers charter. The agreement was to base standards in the charter on the collective agreements between the RMT, Nautilus International, Stena Line and DFDS. The charter still has not been agreed, and there are very real concerns among the unions that it is not fit for purpose. Repeated efforts to amend the Seafarers’ Wages Bill to give the charter legal force were defeated by the Government on the grounds that it would effectively mandate collective bargaining. In reality, that is what we need now, and not another review in a year’s time.

As the Transport Committee’s excellent report on the “Maritime 2050” strategy observes of the seafarers’ charter,

“the Government’s current plan to ask operators to sign up voluntarily will not give the assurances and protections that seafarers want and deserve. We therefore call on the Government to make signing up to the charter a mandatory requirement for all UK maritime operators.”

Labour’s prescription of mandatory rights and standards cuts to the heart of the problem. Restoring trade union collective bargaining agreements, safe roster patterns and dislodging the supply of cheap agency labour on flag of convenience vessels is the way forward and will increase seafarer jobs in this country.

I would like to ask the Minister a whole number of questions. Forgive me; I am sure he will not have the time to respond to every one from the Dispatch Box, but I will put them in writing so that we can get a written response. When will the Government make the seafarers’ charter a mandatory requirement for all other operators in the ferry sector? Will the Minister give the trade unions a formal role in assessing the compliance of operators’ policies with the standards in the charter? What assurances can he give that the charter will not undermine existing collectively agreed terms and conditions in the ferry industry? When will the independent research on roster patterns from the Department for Transport report to Ministers?

The P&O scandal affects the 19,000 mainly retired seafarers in the merchant navy ratings pension fund, a multi-employer scheme to which P&O Ferries owes around about £130 million. It is a liability that it is trying to avoid. What are the Government doing to ensure that DP World meets its liabilities to the members of the MNRPF?

P&O Ferries knowingly and unashamedly breached section 188 of the Trade Unions and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It has benefitted from weaknesses elsewhere in the Act, especially in the Government’s interpretations of sections 193, 194 and 285. Section 285 was cited in the Insolvency Service’s decision not to proceed from the evidential test to the public interest test of prosecuting P&O Ferries for criminal offences, because it was said that section 285, in the judgment of the Insolvency Service, provided only an “even chance” of a successful prosecution. Yet there is nothing in the nine-point plan to close the loopholes in the 1992 Act, despite the urgent need to equalise redundancy rights, as a starter, for land-based workers and seafarers.

The protections that P&O breached were introduced in 2018, with the support of the trade unions, with the express intention of strengthening seafarers’ basic employment rights. There were no protections before, which is why P&O Ferries’ decision to breach them must be the start of a fightback against this despotic approach to industrial relations in the ferry industry. Will the Government therefore commit today to strengthening the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 by amending section 188 to ensure that it clearly applies to seafarers working regularly from UK ports on international routes, and commit to outlawing ex gratia payments to employees connected with an intentional breach of section 188 of the Act ?

Will the Government amend section 193A(2) to legally require employers to notify the Secretary of State for Transport, regardless of the flag of the vessel, of an intention to make more than 20 seafarers redundant, and amend section 194(3) to ensure that the definition of “body corporate” applies to overseas owners, such as DP World? Will they also amend section 285 to provide these protections against instant dismissal for all seafarers working regularly from a UK port, regardless of nationality or the flag of the vessel? Will the Minister make absolutely sure that the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill does not strike out these minimal protections for seafarers in the 1992 Act?

I return to the shocking decision of the Insolvency Service not to pursue criminal damages and charges against P&O Ferries, effectively letting the company and its chief executive Peter Hebblethwaite off absolutely scot-free. It is essential that we get to the bottom of this chronic regulatory failure, so will the Minister commit to looking at that? Will the Minister commit to reforming the Insolvency Service so that a public interest test informs the evidential tests in cases like P&O where a company director blatantly breaks the law to dismiss directly employed seafarers in collective bargaining agreements, and even say they would do the same again? When do the Government expect the Insolvency Service’s civil investigation of P&O Ferries to conclude? The RMT estimates that UK seafarers hold around only half of the 5,300 ratings jobs on cargo and passenger ferries regularly working on a number of international routes, including Crown dependencies. The union believes we are heading in the wrong direction.

The picture across all sectors of shipping is still worse. The Government’s own impact assessment for the Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023 observed that over the past decade UK-resident seafarers have held, on average, 17% of the total number of ratings jobs across the UK shipping industry. That is a national scandal. This rampant profiteering from exploitative crewing contracts is a fundamental lesson from the P&O scandal, and it has serious safety implications. We need to know what action has been taken to assess seafarer fatigue levels on the P&O Ferries fleet, and what the Maritime and Coastguard Agency is doing to monitor the effectiveness of DP World’s safety incident reporting tool, H-SEAS?

P&O Ferries moved its fleet of six ROPAX—roll-on roll-off passenger—ferries from the UK ship register to the Cyprus register in 2019. The Cyprus register has said nothing on the unlawful sackings, in a clear indication of the effects of deregulated shipping registers on decent employment standards. Will the Minister tell us why the Government have signed an agreement with the Shipping Deputy Ministry of Cyprus to co-operate on shipping matters, including seafarer employment and welfare conditions? The Cyprus register is increasingly popular with ferry operators, which is a real source of concern for those UK seafarers working on Cyprus-registered vessels. Is the Minister promoting the Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023 and the seafarers’ charter as part of this agreement?

It is hard to square that with the ambition in the nine-point plan to grow the UK ship register, unless Ministers intend to further deregulate the red ensign. Earlier this month, DP World reported record profits with £3 billion in dividend payments and £15 million in bonuses to directors, including those at P&O Ferries. It is a scandal that the £11.5 million that P&O Ferries received in furlough payments from the UK taxpayer has not been repaid and that DP World will benefit from lucrative Thames Freeport contracts. I also ask the Minister to investigate urgently the delay in P&O Ferries Ltd submitting accounts for the year to 31 December 2020-21, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) raised in a written question.

The future of the UK as a maritime nation, with secure ferry operations supporting full seafarer employment, is at stake here. P&O is introducing new sailings and ferries, and others, such as Cobelfret, are introducing new services that are likely to fall outside the scope of the Seafarers’ Wages Act. How can anyone have faith that the correct lessons will be learned from last year’s scandal while this injustice is allowed to persist?