Climate Change Policy

Paul Sweeney Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Claire Perry]

I commend that plan as a good example of the work that can be done to pull through change. We have increased our support for the transition to zero-emission vehicles across the country to more than £1.5 billion, which will fund charging points, some support for buyers, and the transition to clean mass public transport. I would welcome conversations both with the hon. Lady and with colleagues from other Departments. If we are to accelerate this process, we need to do that first in areas where it will make a real difference to air quality.

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

The nature of this emergency necessitates a national mission-orientated approach, the same sort of vigorous approach that the Americans adopted in the 1960s when they had a national mission to put a man on the moon. That requires the Government to be much more proactive, and much more active, in their approach to bringing forward technologies, de-risking them, and launching them into the wider marketplace in our economy.

A good example of the current failure is in the offshore renewables sector. BiFab yards in Scotland are currently lying idle, with no certainty about their future, because both the UK Government and the Scottish Government are failing to get a grip on the need to allocate a level playing field. Navantia, the Spanish shipbuilder, is currently benefiting from 35% subsidies from the Spanish Government, but this Government are taking no action to level the playing field. We have been ripped off by companies in competitor nations that are stealing our technologies and also undermining our industrial base. What is the Minister going to do about it?

[Claire Perry]

I understand the BiFab situation, which the hon. Gentleman and I have discussed before, but I must gently correct him. The offshore wind sector deal included a commitment to ensuring that UK content—real content, not just intellectual property content—would rise to 60%, and a commitment to a much better audit process. I am aware of the claims that the hon. Gentleman has made, and we must ensure that there is a level playing field when we are essentially committing taxpayers’ money to developing the industry further.

Constitutional Law

Paul Sweeney Excerpts

Wednesday 10th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I do not plan to detain the House for long, as the order before us is purely technical in nature. It is necessary to amend previous legislation with regards to the Scottish section of the renewable energy zone and to correct amendments that were previously made to the Electricity Act 1989 by the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 (Consequential Modifications) Order 2015.

As part of the 2015 order, there was an oversight in its definition of “relevant waters”. It did not include the Scottish section of the renewable energy zone. The order before us today corrects that oversight and will ensure that the same appeals mechanism applies where there is a challenge against a decision of Scottish Ministers on application for a marine licence in relation to an energy-generating station or site development that would be situated in Scottish internal waters, territorial sea or the Scottish section of the REZ.

We all know the benefits that renewable energy can bring to our society and ultimately our planet, which is why I am delighted that the Labour party is committed to a green industrial revolution and fully committed to our target of net zero emissions by 2050. In Scotland, we are all too familiar with what happens when infra- structure projects of a crucial nature, such as renewable energy, are delayed due to court challenges. In fact, the man who now sits in the Oval Office of the White House and is known as the President of the United States is among the more prominent individuals who have challenged offshore renewable infrastructure projects because they happen to dislike the physical or visual impact of them on their golf courses. The order should prevent court challenges of this kind being dragged out and accelerate the procedure by which appeals are determined by fast-tracking legal challenges to minimise the impact of delays on such infrastructure projects.

The Labour party will not oppose the order because, as I said, it is a necessary but simple technical amendment and correction to the 2015 order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Gray]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Sweeney]

rose—

[Claire Perry]

I will give way again briefly, but I sense that the House would like me to wrap up, and I also want to give way to the Leader of the Opposition. [Laughter.] I mean the potential future Leader of the Opposition, the hon. Member for Glasgow North East.

[Claire Perry]

As I have said, it not my decision, and it is not correspondence of which I have been informed.

[Mr Sweeney]

rose—

[Claire Perry]

I will now give way to my shadow—in this particular instance—on the Opposition Front Bench.

[Mr Sweeney]

We should not tempt fate.

The Minister has made an important point: it is frustrating that the Secretary of State for Scotland is not here to make his comments directly and, perhaps, shed more light on the issues that Members have raised. She also made an important point about the opportunity to exploit renewable potential in the coastal waters of the United Kingdom. However, that is not being matched with an effort to build the British industrial base on renewables. We are seeing significant threats to major industrial capacity such as a BiFab project in Scotland for the industrial development of renewables. We may be in danger of losing that opportunity altogether. Is it not incumbent on the Minister and, indeed, on her Scottish counterparts to redouble their efforts to maximise British industrial content and renewable manufacturing projects?

[Claire Perry]

I welcome the opportunity to reassure the hon. Gentleman that the offshore wind sector deal focuses on exactly that. What had happened historically was that we had essentially given out contracts for difference without requiring developers who were taking advantage of them to commit themselves to UK supply chain investment. What I have set out in the sector deal is that in return for terming out the auctions to a 10-year look ahead, which will give us the most secure market look-ahead in this sector in the world, we expect UK content to rise to more than 60% of the supply chain. The hon. Gentleman made an important point about BiFab. We have, of course, worked closely with the Scottish Government throughout that process. It has been another example of very co-operative working.

There is another important point to be made about the sector deal: I should like workforce diversity to improve dramatically. We have set a target of over 30% of the jobs in that sector going to women.

I think I have covered all the points that I wanted to cover. I commend the order, but I also commend what I think will be a marvellous slogan for politics in the future: up with harmonisation, and down with dissent!

Leaving the EU: Protection for Workers

Paul Sweeney Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

First, I echo the hon. Lady’s condolences. She tempts me to go beyond my jurisdiction. My portfolio is pretty broad, covering energy, industry and the industrial strategy, but she refers to matters that are, properly, for the Ministry of Justice. I am happy to talk to the Lord Chancellor and meet the hon. Lady if she would like to talk about such grouping of cases.

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

Has the Secretary of State secured the endorsement of any trade unions for his proposed course of action? If not, what does he propose to do to secure it?

[Greg Clark]

My ambition is not to secure the endorsement of trade unions. We have had fruitful discussions. As I said to the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), I respect the fact that the trade unions would rather things were done in a different way—namely, that we continue to import, as it were, directives and regulations from the European Union and have them enforced by the European Court of Justice. That is their preferred policy; I understand that. It is certainly not our policy. I do not think it is compatible with leaving the European Union. However, leaving the European Union and the opportunity to put in statute various measures, which will allow the House to consider actions that we take on employment rights, does not mean that we cannot establish agreement across the House and take the advice of the trade union movement, even though it might ultimately prefer a different solution.

Solar Industry

Paul Sweeney Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Antoinette Sandbach]

I absolutely agree, and I hope the Minister will say something about community schemes in her response, because there are many different ways of installing and making the best of solar power, as the hon. Gentleman has just indicated, and its flexibility has been one of the reasons why it has been taken up so quickly.

I was talking about the damage to the solar industry. One firm in my constituency, near the village of Malpas, closed once the restrictions on the existing feed-in tariff schemes were imposed. I hope that was a one-off and not a sign of things to come.

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech about the benefits of the feed-in tariff scheme and why it ought to be maintained. However, does she recognise that there are flaws in the way it has been applied, particularly in relation to the green deal scheme, such that many people were mis-sold feed-in tariffs and have been severely financially affected by the issue, including many of my constituents and others across the UK? The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy still has to address that through the Green Deal Finance Company.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

I am aware of the issue. I think those people were misled at the point of signing, and then were trapped in contracts that they found very difficult to execute. I know there have been some very detailed radio programmes that have covered the position of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and others.

In my area, however, solar has been a success and people are keen to get involved in solar projects. In fact, that is true not only of solar. In Church Minshull in my constituency we have a wonderful Archimedes screw. That is not a cocktail or anything salacious, but a hydropower project that produces enough electricity to power the equivalent of 77 homes. Nevertheless, despite the success of such projects locally, the prospects for solar power nationally are rather bleak. The UK was recently rated 20th out of 20 for global solar photovoltaics prospects between 2018 and 2022 by SolarPower Europe’s global market outlook.

Net Zero Carbon Emissions: UK’s Progress

Paul Sweeney Excerpts

Thursday 28th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)]

I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for High Peak (Ruth George), and I congratulate the hon. Members for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on securing this long-overdue debate. Surely we have seen evidence of global warning this month in the record high temperatures for February, as well as in the disturbing reports of melting polar ice caps. Collapsing ice at the poles is a powerful indication of a warming world.

Tackling carbon emissions is absolutely a matter of urgency, and achieving the necessary emissions reductions for the world that we leave to our grandchildren will require the collective efforts of all peoples and decision makers on a global scale. Young people recently walked out of lessons at their schools in protest against what they see as the lack of interest in and commitment to green issues. Their action showed how aware communities are of this important topic. We as individuals must all do our bit and show leadership, and our debate on our UK carbon emissions is an important step. We must explore cross-party support and progress towards net zero carbon emissions.

The threat of climate change is more real than ever, and it absolutely must be taken seriously. The Inter- governmental Panel on Climate Change has estimated that to obtain net zero carbon emissions, or carbon neutrality, global society will have to balance its carbon emissions with carbon sequestration by 2050. Failure to limit global warming to 1.5° or less could result in sea levels rising as well as the occurrence of natural disasters such as extreme weather conditions. This in turn would result in the mass displacement of people and the disappearance of entire ecosystems such as tropical coral reefs.

The UK signed up to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 when the EU ratified the Paris agreement in 2016. Under the Climate Change Act 2008, the UK Government committed to an 80% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. Under their 2017 clean growth strategy, they pledged to work with other countries towards achieving net zero carbon emissions in the second half of this century. The Government have also promised to use legislation to provide legal clarity that this target will be met at an appropriate point in the future. I would like some clarity on that point. Are these plans working?

The Scottish Government’s 2018 Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill raised their commitment on carbon emission reductions to 90% by 2050, a target that the UK Government Committee on Climate Change currently considers to be at the limit of feasibility. In March 2016, the then United Nations climate change secretary, Christiana Figueres, said that Scotland’s progress on climate change had been “exemplary to the world”. We have now established a climate change Bill that will set new statutory targets for reduction by 2050, moving into a net zero emissions target as soon as possible. Scotland has long been recognised for punching above its weight on tackling climate change. Roseanna Cunningham, the Cabinet Secretary, has stated:

“To be successful, we must create an environment in which industries can transition smoothly to a low or zero-carbon future.”

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Mc Nally]

I am very sorry, but I do not have time.

It is worth mentioning that a new stock exchange is opening next week in Scotland, and I am delighted to have been invited to the opening in Edinburgh. Bourse Scot is focusing on social and environmental companies. This new social and environmental exchange will involve rules on the activities of firms, with the staff requiring participating firms to prove what they claim about social and green outcomes. Bourse Scot hopes that the renewables industries will see it as a place to raise funds. For me, the opening of that stock exchange plainly demonstrates that there is long-term certainty and confidence in Scottish ambitions across all parties, and that Scotland is indeed a centre for excellence. I know this cannot be achieved overnight, as it is a generational challenge. We are moving in the right direction, and the quicker we move in that direction, the better.

I think the UK Government are politically and geographically broken. If we want to change the world, we must follow the girl who was mentioned earlier and get busy in our own little corner, and Scotland is doing exactly that.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

This has been a tremendously good, positive and applied debate, and, from my 21 years in this House, I cannot say that has always been the case. I have attended virtually every climate change debate in this House, and it is shocking that we have not had one for two years.

Those previous debates were usually characterised by a claque of climate change deniers who regularly attempted to derail them. This debate is perhaps a reflection of where we have got to now. I thought that one of the last remaining serious climate change deniers in the House, the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), would take part, but it turned out he wanted to talk about Welsh tourism, which is a mercy.

We are all together this afternoon, perhaps for the first time, when it is almost too late. Everything that has been said by climate scientists, and that has been said in all the debates I have been involved in during my long time in the House, is coming true and proving to be right. We should perhaps talk not about a climate change debate but about a climate is changing debate.

I am not smug about the fact that what I was saying in our previous debates has been proved right, and what those climate change deniers were saying has been proved wrong; it scares me stiff. We are now at two minutes to 12 on the climate emergency before us. I thank all the hon. Members who, in different ways, have contributed this afternoon on that central point.

I thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for securing this debate, and I thank the hon. Members, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) and for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin), who pointed out just how little time we have had for these debates. When we get the advice of the Committee on Climate Change on a net zero future, it might be appropriate for the Minister to make sure that we can have a debate in Government time, for at least half a day—or a whole day, if we want to be ambitious—on that advice and its implications and ramifications so that hon. Members are allowed the proper time to put across what they want to say about this climate emergency and what we need to do to deal with it.

I am scared stiff because I know that the ability to do anything about this climate emergency is on our watch. Members of Parliament over the next 12 years, as mentioned in the IPCC report, will have to get their act together on climate change or forever miss the opportunity to do anything about it.

[Mr Sweeney]

My hon. Friend is making an important point about the time constraints, and about how this House has not done nearly enough to debate this issue. Does he agree it is critical that other Government Departments, not just BEIS, focus on the implications of climate change, particularly the Department for Transport, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Ministry of Defence and so on? We must understand the impact those Departments have on Government policy in shaping a holistic approach to policy making across all parts of Government.

[Dr Whitehead]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, which is that the action we need to be taking in this House for the future must not just be the province of one Department, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) pointed out. It needs to be something that seeps to the core of every part of government and of this House. Everything we do must be judged by whether we are making progress on reducing carbon emissions and fighting the effects of climate change or whether it is going in the opposite direction.

In that context, I want to draw the House’s attention to what we have done so far and what we are—we hope—going to do for the future, because that is crucial in terms of moving from our current target of an 80% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050 to that net zero target. Of course a net zero target does not just mean doing things that reduce carbon; it means doing things that actually put carbon back in the ground. We are talking about negative carbon emissions, as well as positive carbon emissions. It means planning a whole different system of doing things, as my hon. Friends the Members for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) and for Cardiff North drew attention to. We need to do things in different ways in order to make that change in our economy, so that we have a permanent low-carbon, sustainable economy for the future.

Unpaid Work Trials

Paul Sweeney Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) on securing this debate and on his persistent and tenacious work in championing this long-standing issue. It is important, because in many ways his background is reflected in the priorities he brings to this House. I was thinking about the backgrounds of many MPs, and perhaps that is something we need to consider. Is this matter on their radar at all? Do they have even a basic understanding of how this sector operates? Have they ever had exposure to it? Have they ever understood how these exploitative employment practices work?

Like the hon. Gentleman, I share that background of having worked in similar environments. I reflect on my first job when I was at school: I went to work in a pizzeria in Glasgow called La Vita, which hon. Members might have heard of. There is one in George Square, one in Byres Road and one in Bishopbriggs Cross. I was hired on a zero-hours contract, but I also had to do an unpaid trial shift when I started there with my friend Ryan. I remember we were competing against each other for the same job, but they ended up taking us both on.

Often, we would go in during the week and work for maybe an hour, and then be sent home with a free pizza when we were expecting to work five or six hours. It was okay for me, because I was still living at home at the time, so it was pocket money, but I shudder to think about the people I worked alongside, who relied on that as income to live on and often to take care of children. While I was somewhat insulated from the full effects of that exploitative practice, I none the less realised that it was unfair and discriminatory. We also had our tips taken from us—a practice that was subsequently made illegal. That just shows that, even though we are operating at the margins, things that happened then to me and others are actually illegal now.

We are still dealing with the effects of casualised employment, zero-hours contracts and unpaid trial shifts, which remain to be tackled. I wonder why that is not a priority for this Government and why it is not a priority for more Members of this House, who might otherwise have been here. I think it is simply that they are not aware of it.

[Patricia Gibson]

The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that it does not seem to be a priority for this Government—unless, of course, the Minister is able to enlighten us and tell us what her Government might do. Does he agree, given that we all understand it is not a priority for this Government, that that is a powerful argument for devolving this power to the Scottish Government?

[Mr Sweeney]

As a Labour Member of Parliament, my analysis is primarily driven by class. I have just as much interest in securing the employment rights of someone who lives in Liverpool as of someone in Glasgow. That is where I operate. I am saying that I want us to have unity of purpose for worker’s rights across the UK, and that is why I believe in the trade union movement and the labour movement. We can have respect for ideological difference on this, but that is my analysis, and it is as simple as that.

I want to increase trade union density, because there has historically been a significant casualisation and a low trade union density in the hospitality sector in this country. That is why the “Better Than Zero” campaign has been particularly effective in mobilising workers and making them aware of their power. I also commend the GMB for the excellent, ground-breaking agreement it achieved with Hermes, the courier firm, just yesterday, which secured holiday pay, guaranteed rates and collective negotiation under the GMB, with full recognition for those workers. That is a lesson for the rest of the gig economy and the hospitality sector that we can really achieve improvements, and a demonstration of a trade union working innovatively. What could we do for workers’ rights across the UK with the real force of law and legislation behind them? I feel that would be a real game-changer for our economy; it would improve average wages and improve the resilience of our economy, and that is the way we ought to proceed.

I have experienced exploitative employment practices, as have other Members of this House. It is time that this House woke up to the reality facing millions of young people and casualised workers across the UK.

Nissan in Sunderland

Paul Sweeney Excerpts

Monday 4th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

It is important for the hon. Gentleman to recognise that the investment being made in Sunderland is greater than was planned two and a half years ago. The company is investing more of its capital in Sunderland than it originally intended. That is significant because the pace of change in the sector means that there are great opportunities for investment right across it. We have a reputation because of a long-term commitment to the sector that started before this Government for being at the leading edge of innovation. If we can resolve the question of our future relationship with the European Union, I believe that substantial investments will be made very quickly, to the great benefit of this country and the people who work across it.

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

When I started my career in manufacturing, I had the great benefit of being taught by experts in lean manufacturing from Nissan, Toyota Burnaston and Airbus. One thing that was drilled into me from a young age was the concept of the seven wastes: transportation, inventory, motion, waiting, over-production, over-processing and defects. The worst of those wastes was inventory. As a result of the uncertainty facing British industry, inventory levels are increasing, putting British industry at a permanent competitive disadvantage. Does the Minister recognise that the absence of a customs union will put British industry at a permanent strategic competitive disadvantage?

[Greg Clark]

I am impressed at the hon. Gentleman’s recall of the principles that he was taught. He is right that one of the benefits and sources of efficiency in our production system is that companies do not need warehouses or inventory. It is clearly a matter of huge regret that companies are having to invest in inventory and warehouses and divert capital from more productive uses. I agree that we need a deal and an agreement that allows just-in-time production to continue. I strongly share his analysis of that.

Nuclear Update

Paul Sweeney Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

The model we have pursued is one in which these proposals are private sector-led. I place on record my respect and gratitude for the time, effort and financial investment that Hitachi has made in working with us to develop the proposal to this stage. Of course there have been discussions with my officials, but the vast majority of the costs have been with the proposed developer.

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I declare an interest as a council member of the Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders in Scotland, which recently published a report by Professor Iain MacLeod of the University of Strathclyde entitled, “Engineering for Energy: A proposal for governance of the energy system”.

This is a major issue because of the risk of blackouts increasing from hours to days, particularly in Scotland. If that does occur, and we are talking about a lengthy delay in restarting the bid, there will be negative consequences for the supply of food, water, heat, money and petrol. It would be a disastrous situation for the Scottish economy and could lead to civil unrest. The root cause of that risk is the closure of large-scale coal and nuclear power stations, and the grid has not been reformulated and replanned to deal with the intermittency of renewables. That is a massive risk that the Scottish Government have not done anything to address. What will the Secretary of State do to reduce this massive existential risk to the national security of this country?

[Greg Clark]

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I note his interest and his experience in this field. National Grid is undertaking a substantial programme of transformation to make the grid smarter and able to accommodate intermittent renewables. Again, progress has been made. The amount of renewable energy being deployed is vastly in excess of what the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) was advised was possible when he was in office. Great strides are being made. A smarter grid is a more effective and more resilient grid.

Crown Post Offices: Franchising

Paul Sweeney Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) for initiating this debate and speaking so powerfully in introducing it. As many hon. Members have said, she laid out comprehensively the matters that we have concerns about.

I recently met a number of postmasters in my constituency to discuss their concerns, so the issue is not just the collapse of the Crown office network—the 60% decline that we have seen in that network. Last year saw the sale of the Dennistoun Crown office in my constituency; it was franchised off. I remember going along to the consultation that the new franchisee was holding, and he seemed upbeat about the opportunity that he had to make a difference. I was looking at the plans that he had. On the face of it, it was all quite impressive—the layouts and accessibility and the opportunity.

Obviously, at that time I expressed the concerns about TUPE-ing. We have seen that the general trend is that the majority of Crown office staff will leave. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) said, staff will have a very generous settlement scheme, but that is because the business model of the franchising is set up so that it is sustainable only if those people take the settlements. TUPE-ing people across on the same terms and conditions is not a sustainable business model for the franchise. It is almost rigged, in a way, to create that perverse incentive to leave. There is a draining out of skills and knowledge and a diluting of employment protections and the standards of employment that people would generally have working in this sector.

The postmasters came to see me because they were concerned. The same guy I was talking about came six months later, and his mood could not have been more depressed. It was just awful to see the change from his initial upbeat enthusiasm. That small business owner had been looking to make an entrepreneurial fist of it, but he felt that he had been conned in the way he had signed up to the deal.

The main concern of the postmasters was the viability of the operations because of the reduction in funding and resource. For example, postmasters now have to rent ATMs at a cost of £8,500 per annum, but they get an income of only £7,500 per annum from those machines, so that is a net loss of £1,000 to the franchisee, just from the obligation to have an ATM on-site. There are associated business rates as well.

The Government have invested £1.3 billion in the post office network. However, that money does not appear to filter down to the franchisees. Banking contracts with new franchisees have changed. Postmasters used to receive 70p per £100 for providing banking services; they now receive only 31p per £100. That creates another problematic and precarious situation for many franchise owners.

As hon. Members have said, there has been a widespread programme of commercial bank branch closures, which has hit my constituency. Near the Dennistoun Crown post office, we have seen the closure of the Royal Bank of Scotland branch in Dennistoun in the last 18 months or so. Before that we saw the closure of RBS in Possilpark. My constituency has increasingly become a banking desert. It increasingly relies on post office services, which in turn are becoming increasingly precarious because all the Crown offices are being franchised. One has already been franchised, and indeed one franchise cannot be shifted because it is so unattractive to any prospective franchisee.

The situation is not working at all and is not sustainable. Potential earnings have been eroded to the point at which people believe that cash starvation will lead to the closure of many post office outlets. The view is that post offices should go back to being run as they were. My fear is that offloading the Crown office network on to franchisees stores up a time bomb. There could be a wholesale collapse in the provision of postal services across the UK within the next five years because those people literally want to drop the keys and walk away because it is costing them money to run these businesses. It is a drain on their resources. Why on earth would they be paying money to run them? I fear that the Post Office is sort of saying, “Let’s offload this. We’ll create a superficial holding pattern for a couple of years and lock the people into these contracts,” and in two years’ time things are going to drop off a cliff and we are going to see a massive collapse in the overall post office footprint across the UK. That is my real concern.

I hope the Minister takes on board and addresses my points, and that she offers to meet postmasters who have those concerns. Postmasters in my constituency believe that their ability to provide a service, which they want to provide, and employment in the constituency is being severely eroded and that retail operations within the franchises are not sufficient to allow their survival. They believe that contracts should be renegotiated to allow both the service provision and the ability to earn a reasonable living. Of course, the Communication Workers Union actively opposes the franchising of the post office network for that very reason. Employees in those branches believe that they are 39% underpaid.

The model is totally unsustainable and risks further collapse in the post office network across the UK. I hope you will take on board the direct feedback from postmasters in my constituency. Sorry, I hope the Minister takes on board that feedback—perhaps you will as well, Mr Evans, and perhaps your constituents are also affected. I hope the Minister addresses those points with urgency because this is an urgent issue affecting postal services across the UK.

Good Work Plan

Paul Sweeney Excerpts

Monday 17th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

As of today, the new legislation that we have introduced will give the right to a day-one written statement of the rights of workers. They will be told unambiguously, as of right, what they are entitled to as part of their employment. The separate issue, which the hon. Lady might be eliding with that one, is whether the different rights associated with different categories of employment or self-employment are clear enough. That will require some changes in the law and regulations, to which we have committed, but the combination of the entitlement to day-one clarity and some further changes to reduce some of the ambiguity between the categories will achieve what the hon. Lady intends.

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

Generally speaking, this plan is a step forward for workers’ rights in the UK but, as always, it is a war of attrition. I have particular concern about workers who are in distressed enterprises that face closure, many of whom have seen long-standing issues. For example, in my constituency we have heard in the past couple of days the announcement that a railway works that has been in existence since 1856 is threatened with closure, even though it has been through several owners since 2013 and in the process the workers have surrendered so much of their right to their pension entitlements. The works has effectively been asset-stripped by a company called Knorr-Bremse, which transferred it to a German company, and it then went under the term of a company called Gemini Rail Services.

Will the Secretary of State reflect on the situation facing the workers at that plant, look into the issues facing the heavy maintenance and overhaul of the railway industry in the UK, and undertake to meet me to discuss the particular difficulties faced by the heavy maintenance and overhaul industry in the UK railway sector? It is facing real crisis. We need to take action to protect those jobs and vital skills, particularly in Springburn in my constituency.

[Greg Clark]

It would obviously not be appropriate for me to comment on that particular case at the Dispatch Box without making myself more familiar with it, but I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman, or for one of my colleagues to do so. More generally, the treatment of workers and pensioners in respect of companies in trouble is subject to a separate set of reforms that the Government are introducing. I would be happy to take the hon. Gentleman through them when we meet.