Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 30th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald). I will pick up where he left off. The right to strike is neither absolute nor unlimited. He was correct to point the Committee to the 87th convention of the ILO on freedom of association and protection of the right to organise, and he will be aware that article 9 of that convention sets out the limited circumstances in which any member state has a margin for discretion to decide whether certain sectors can be banned from striking altogether. As a matter of fact, the United Kingdom exercises that qualification in restricting the right to strike for police officers, members of the armed forces and prison officers.

Despite the hon. Gentleman’s language about this country’s having very restricted union rights, Opposition Members must concede that there has been a high degree of consensus while in government. I gently remind him that when Labour was last in government, after the numerous changes to strike law in the 1980s, it published the “Fairness at Work” White Paper in 1998. Its foreword stated:

“There will be no going back. The days of strikes without ballots, mass picketing, closed shops and secondary action are over.”

Where I agree with the hon. Gentleman, although I present it from a different angle, is that the issue throughout debate on this Bill is whether the proposed restrictions are necessary and proportionate. Amendments 9 to 14 and 73 to 75, tabled by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), who is no longer in her place, and other Labour Front Benchers, would hack out each of the sectors that have been designated as sufficiently important to warrant a minimum service level—education, transport, nuclear decommissioning, border security, fire and health.

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough was a tiny bit disingenuous when he read from the ILO’s publication and said that the ILO allows a minimum service level only in

“services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population”.

He knows as well as I do that he could and should have read on, because the ILO allows minimum service levels in

“services which are not essential in the strict sense of the term, but in which strikes of a certain magnitude and duration could cause an acute crisis threatening the normal conditions of existence…or in public services of fundamental importance.”

Earlier today, every Member of this House received a House of Commons Library briefing on this Bill. It included an important 2012 report from the ILO, which I know many Members will have read, that provides some assistance:

“the right to strike is not absolute and may be restricted in exceptional circumstances, or even prohibited”.

The report gives three examples of where that might apply. The first is certain categories of public servants, and relevant to this debate is the reference to teachers:

“the Committee considers that public sector teachers are not included in the category of public servants ‘exercising authority in the name of the State’ and that they should therefore benefit from the right to strike…even though, under certain circumstances, the maintenance of a minimum service may be envisaged… This principle should also apply to postal workers and railway employees, as well as to civilian personnel in military institutions when they are not engaged in the provision of essential services in the strict sense of the term.”

In relation to the National Education Union, which is striking on Wednesday, and the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, which seems to be striking most of the time, the Opposition know, or at least ought to know, that the ILO thinks that minimum service levels should apply both in education and transport.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is making a very interesting contribution. She and the Government are making out that the International Labour Organisation somehow supports this measure. However, its director general has said that he is “very worried” about this Bill. Given that, will the hon. Lady invite the Minister to withdraw his assertion that the ILO supports this measure?

[Laura Farris]

An experienced employment lawyer like the hon. Member for Middlesbrough will know the true mechanics very well. A union and probably the TUC and Professor Keith Ewing, because he did the last one, will put in a written submission to the ILO, and its committee of experts based at the ILO office in Geneva will respond in due course. It is not appropriate to say that something is the complete answer of the ILO because somebody has waggled a microphone under somebody’s nose at Davos. There is a procedure.

I hope my speech is not confusing the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), because I am not suggesting for a moment that what was sent to MPs this morning is a comment on the United Kingdom. It is the ILO’s statement of general principles on minimum service levels, and I will continue, if I may. The ILO says that the second acceptable restriction is where strikes take place in activities that may be considered essential services. It lists, at paragraph 135 of its 2012 report:

“air traffic control, telephone service…firefighting services, health and ambulance services, prison services, the security forces and water and electricity services.”

The report continues:

“In situations in which a…total prohibition of strike action would not appear to be justified…consideration might be given to ensuring that users’ basic needs are met or that facilities operate safely or without interruption, the introduction of a negotiated minimum service…could be appropriate.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Newlands]

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) was wearing one when he was here earlier.

In every single election since then—17 UK general elections, six Scottish general elections, elections for district councils, regions, boroughs and counties, and elections for the European Union; ah, remember that?—the Tories have failed to win a majority in Scotland. There have been 68 unbroken years of failure, and rejection at the ballot box by the people of Scotland. Indeed, the only reason they had MSPs in the early years of the Scottish Parliament was due to a proportional representation system that they opposed, and continue to oppose for this place.

The Tories are a busted flush in Scotland, an archaic piece of electoral history, and they have been for decades, yet Tory Ministers have the gall to stand at the Dispatch Box and try to legislate to attack the rights of workers in Scotland. Scotland does not want this. Scotland is a modern country, and modern countries have a modern industrial relations policy. Modern countries treat their citizens like human beings, not a force to be crushed, and we have a mandate from the electorate for just that. Given that the Scottish Government have indicated that they will oppose this legislation, I say to the Minister for Science, Research and Innovation—who has just sat down on the Front Bench—and his colleagues: save yourselves the trouble, accept the amendment, or any of the others that do something similar, and exclude Scotland and Wales from Tory delusions.

Amendments 106, 109 and 111 would exempt transport services and exclude devolved services in Scotland from being subject to a work notice. ScotRail is safely under public ownership in Scotland. We are utterly opposed to forcing workers into work, but—dare I say this? Do not tell headquarters; we will keep it our secret—there is the possibility that the SNP might not form the Government in Scotland. These amendments would simply guarantee that, in the brief period between now and Scottish independence, a change in Government in Holyrood would not mean a change in operation of this Bill in Scotland. To be clear, if my amendments are accepted, the Bill would not operate at all for transport services.

No organisation or Government are immune to industrial disputes; what is key is how they are dealt with by employers. In ScotRail’s case, two separate disputes, with ASLEF and the RMT, were settled last year after constructive and mature dialogue and negotiation between employers and workers and their trade union representatives. That is how industrial relations should be conducted: with mutual respect and recognition. Sadly, that approach has not been replicated down here, despite calls by me and many others for UK Transport ministers to learn from their counterparts in Edinburgh.

More broadly, I doubt whether there is a single worker in the transport sector whose job is not in some way safety-critical, whether they are bus, train or taxi drivers, mechanics, signallers, guards, ticket collectors, cleaners, or anyone else involved in keeping our transport infrastructure running. I do not want my safety to be compromised by forcing those employees into work. I want safety-critical staff to be well motivated and happy in the job. I want them to be in an atmosphere that does not involve threats and coercion. I do not want them having to worry about criminal action or financial sanctions being taken against their legal representatives. I want them focusing on one thing: public safety. So to be clear, we will oppose this anti-trade union, anti-worker legislation every step of the way.

Similarly, amendments 108, 114 and 110 would remove services provided by devolved Governments from the Bill. Amendment 110 would ensure that a work notice were valid only if its provisions were submitted by an employer to the three devolved institutions and received the support of over 80% of elected Members in each Chamber. But as has been noted, when this Government encounter opposition, their response is not to argue their case on its merits or otherwise; it is usually simply to legislate that opposition away. We have seen that in elections for Mayors in England, where the supplementary vote system was scrapped and replaced with the discredited first-past-the-post system, despite no evidence that that will improve governance.

When the Government discovered that the Welsh Government had used their powers to disallow the use of agency staff to replace strikers in the public sector, they announced that they would simply overrule the Senedd and repeal that legislation. When Transport for the North became too bothersome and vocal about the UK Government’s appalling record of rail investment in north of England, they slashed its budget. Shamefully, only a couple of weeks ago we saw the veto of legislation passed by 70% of Members of the Scottish Parliament, using hitherto untouched powers.

The Government are even afraid of letting the people of Scotland decide their own constitutional future, so it is clear that they should not be involved in the industrial relations of devolved Administrations or metro authorities. They simply cannot be trusted. Indeed, we remember how Thatcher’s hatred of opposition from metropolitan areas in the 1980s reached the point where large English conurbations were left with little or no effective regional governance, after she wiped the metropolitan counties off the map. She was simply setting a precedent for the current Government’s contempt for political opposition from other elected bodies to their agenda.

My amendments would prevent a Westminster power grab from the English cities and the devolved Administrations and ensure that the voters of those areas retained the ability to determine their own industrial relations and elect politicians who want to work in partnership with workers and unions, rather than engaging in perpetual war.

Amendment 112 would exempt occupations and employees subject to the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 from any regulations allowing a work notice to be issued. I do not believe that anyone engaged in supporting and providing critical services should be forced to work. Each of those sectors is vital to the continued functioning of a healthy society. The Secretary of State’s argument is that he believes that that is why they should be prevented from striking. My argument is that that is exactly why they should not.

To conclude, workers’ data, which is the subject of amendment 113, should not be subject to less protection simply because those workers want to exercise the right to strike, especially if they live in a jurisdiction that roundly rejects this Bill and this Government. I am proud to say that Scotland not only rejects this Bill utterly, but rejects the Tories, as it has each and every time for nearly 70 years. With nonsense legislation like this, it will be at least 70 years before they become relevant to Scotland once again.

[Richard Burgon]

I rise to speak in support of new clause 1, which I tabled and which I am delighted has been signed by more than 30 MPs. It would mean that if the Bill passes, which it should not, it would not be allowed to come into effect until UK courts certified that the UK was meeting its international labour obligations, including by complying with the International Labour Organisation standards on workers’ rights.

The truth is that the UK has often been in breach of those obligations. New clause 1 is necessary partly because we have heard during the Bill’s progress, as well as when it was trumpeted before it was brought to Parliament, repeated claims from the Prime Minister and the Business Secretary that this legislation will somehow bring our country into line with Europe and that the International Labour Organisation supports such measures. That is absolute rubbish. The ILO does not support these measures. It does not support this legislation. The Bill does not bring us into line with other European countries. The truth is that the rights of workers in Britain lag behind those of workers in other European countries. The reality is that workers’ rights in this country need to be levelled up with the rights of workers in other countries, not attacked further.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

The hon. Gentleman refers to the need to notify. My understanding is that an individual worker is under no obligation to notify, although the trade union has to give notification. As a consequence, a headteacher could have no idea which staff in their school will be going on strike, and therefore cannot plan for a safe staffing level. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the individual worker should be required, as the trade union is, to give notice of whether they intend to strike?

[Richard Burgon]

That is a very helpful intervention, because it illuminates the fact that I am afraid the hon. Member, and other Conservative Members, do not believe in individual liberty. We believe in collective rights as well as in individual rights. The trade union has to notify the employer of the dates of strike action, yet the Government Minister is saying—I mean the hon. Member; I am sorry to accidentally promote him, although he might get a promotion for that intervention. He is saying that individual workers should have to notify the employer about their intentions. That goes against individual liberty, against civil rights, and against individual freedoms. Thereby we see what this Government are proposing.

Anti-trade union laws mean that workers are denied their fair share of the wealth they create. In this era of neoliberalism, which has lasted decades, the race to the bottom has seen the share of the economy going to wages plummet from 60% to less than half today. Wages go down as profits go up. This Bill is happening now because workers are fighting back. This Bill is an attack by the Government on trade unions. If what the Government are saying is true, they would be pleased to accept my new clause, although I am sure they will not. If they have nothing to hide, let a court rule on this. Our country is often in breach of its international workers’ rights and duties. It is in breach with this Bill, and it does not bring us into line. We need to level up the rights of workers in Britain with the rights of workers elsewhere.

Let me tell the Committee—I will finish on this point—that workers in my constituency and across the country are sick to death of being attacked by bad bosses and by a bad Conservative Government. They are sick of being the poor relations of workers in other countries in Europe when it comes to hard-won workers’ rights. Workers in this country deserve better and it is about time that the Government stopped attacking them.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in support of the many amendments to which I have put my name, and indeed of any amendment that would make the Bill unrecognisable from its current form. Fundamentally, this Bill is so wrong that we should not even be debating it. I am proud to declare my membership of Unite the union, and I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests for the support I receive from other unions.

The Conservative party continues to talk about our trade unionists with such contempt, as if they are some separate class of people. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) put it absolutely right when he said that they are just ordinary people. They are the representatives of working people in this country, and Government Members would do well to put some respect on their name.

Hon. Members will find no shame on this side of the Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) put it well, because trade union money is the cleanest money in society. Perhaps there is a lot more shame on the other side of the Committee, or perhaps it is just that if we were to spend our time going through all the Government Members’ murky interests, we would be here for some time and not get to hear their speeches.

Our trade unions call the Bill “undemocratic, unworkable and illegal”, and they are rightly considering legal action if it passes. As we have heard time and again, it likely breaches article 11 of the International Labour Organisation’s constitution. But we have seen that the Government have absolutely no issue with breaking international law.

I was shocked to find myself agreeing with a fraction of something said by the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg). However, I could not quite understand how he did not arrive at the conclusion that he would vote against the Bill. He lost me on his blanket acceptance of Henry VIII powers. A basic British primary school education tells us that Henry VIII was not a particularly democratically minded man, or a reasonable one. In a modern democratic society, there is no place for such powers or such men.

How many times have we seen those powers used recently in Government legislation? Far from being an exception, they have become the rule. It has also become the rule that the Government fail to publish impact assessments, which is bad practice from a bad Government who know that their bad policies will impact some of the most vulnerable people in our society. We have passed legislation in a day when we have needed to, and this legislation is being done at an unusual speed, so why do we need those powers? To put it clearly, our constituents do not send us to this place for a small group of people from the Conservative party to make all the laws unchecked.

I want to go over some of the claims that Ministers have made about the Bill. They say that other countries have similar agreements on curbing strikes. That idea needs debunking. Yes, others have such agreements, but the context is very different. Anti-trade union laws are far more severe here than in other countries, as are the sanctions for breaking such agreements. To use Italy as an example, a worker could lose the equivalent of two hours’ pay. In this country, they could lose their job and livelihood and be blacklisted, with no recourse to claims of unfair dismissal. Our unions could also face unlimited fines.

Another claim is that the legislation was a 2019 Conservative manifesto commitment. Well, so was providing the resources that our public services need and the recruitment of additional doctors and nurses—when exactly will the Tories meet those commitments? The reality is that our public services are in crisis and medical professionals are leaving in droves, forced out by understaffing and falling real-terms pay.

The Tories have no mandate for the Bill, because, again, the 2019 Conservative manifesto had only one reference to minimum service levels, which was as follows:

“We will require that a minimum service operates during transport strikes.”

There is nothing at all about imposing that on NHS workers or firefighters, or on other workers in the future, but that is exactly what the Government want to do. In addition, that sole paragraph dealing with minimum service levels goes on to say:

“Rail workers deserve a fair deal, but it is not fair to let the trade unions undermine the livelihoods of others.”

It is not true in the slightest that the Government, who are interfering so blatantly in the current dispute, are providing a fair deal for rail workers, or that strikes undermine the livelihood or safety of others. Our trade unions are striking not just for pay and conditions but because of the poor levels of service that the Government have driven their sectors to.

Pay freezes have also been imposed even though cumulative consumer price inflation in the two years to November was more than 16%. Official projections from the Office for Budget Responsibility suggest that real pay will fall again in 2023 unless there is a big pay rise.

I do not want to spend all my time talking about the Conservative manifesto, because, as the Committee will imagine, it is not my favourite document. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) asked what would be in our manifesto. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) laid it out quite well, but if Conservative Members want to hear more about what will be in the Labour party manifesto, they should encourage their colleagues to call a general election so that we can give them one and they can have a good read of it.

The Government claim that there is no money left, or that their miserly pay offers are the work of an independent pay review body. That has already been widely exposed as incorrect. The review bodies’ entire terms are set by the Government. Ministers have found hundreds of millions in funds to subsidise the rail companies for strike losses; in fact, they have admitted that it would have been cheaper for them to settle the dispute. That shows that the Government’s real aim is to break trade unions, but trade unions will not be broken. They have the support of people right across this country. If the Government continue to attempt to restrict the right to strike, all they will have on their hands is more strikes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

No, I will not.

On the other points, the impact assessment will be available shortly. It is fair to say that we see the Bill as having a net benefit to the economy. Individual impact assessments will support secondary legislation.

To respond to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), we do not believe that the Bill reduces requirements for employers to adhere to health and safety and equality legislation. It is compatible with convention rights and international obligations—

[Richard Burgon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

No, I am making some progress.

The Bill does not target union members, as clearly stated in proposed new section 234C(6) on page 4 of the Bill. In terms of devolution, we believe that minimum service levels are necessary across Great Britain, but we are of course keen to engage with the devolved Governments through consultation.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Richard Burgon Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 16th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

I will just make this point because I think Labour Members may find it useful. Those prices going up throughout the rest of the world, including here, has also pushed up wage claims. But I do not think we should get into a 1970s spiral, where we end up with higher wage claims and higher wage settlements, with higher wage claims and inflation continuing for ever. That is a cycle we must break. Clearly, if we were to meet all the inflation busting demands of the unions, that would make life harder not only for some but for every single family in this country. That is why we cannot do that. The Government are therefore absolutely clear: we want constructive dialogue with the unions, and the public have had enough of the constant, most unwelcome, and frankly dangerous, disruptions to their lives.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. Last week, Human Rights Watch warned that

“fundamental and hard-won rights are being systematically dismantled”

in the UK. Is this anti-strike legislation part of the danger that Human Rights Watch is warning about?

[Grant Shapps]

The International Labour Organisation itself says—I will cover this shortly in my speech—that it is perfectly proper to have a balance between minimum service levels and people’s right to strike. I support the ILO in saying that; I absolutely agree it is right. I note, however, that the hon. Gentleman did not mention the fact that he has received £94,000-plus from unions. Now, I have no issue with him receiving that money from unions—I do not think that we should have taxpayer-funded political parties in this House—but I think it is only right that when Opposition Members stand up, they reflect what is on their records, which is that they have received a lot of money from unions and now seek to represent them in the debate.

Millions of people who rely on essential transport to get to work or to family commitments now every day have the extra stress of worrying about making alternative, sometimes costly, arrangements because of the forever strikes. There are those who, at the most terrifying time of their lives—perhaps with a poorly loved one—do not know whether an ambulance will arrive, because the unions have refused to provide a national safety net. [Interruption.] I hear the barracking and understand that Opposition Members do not want to hear what people throughout the country are feeling, but it is a fact that when strikes are on and ambulances are unable to find out from their unions whether they will operate, that is an additional concern for members of the public—including Opposition Members’ constituents, whom they seem rather not to care about in this case. I am surprised about that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I was also a trade union lawyer for 10 years before being elected to Parliament.

This Bill comes in the context of an attack on the right to vote, an attack on the right to protest peacefully and, now, an attack on the democratic right to strike. I want to read out what Human Rights Watch said last week:

“In 2022, we saw the most significant assault on human rights protections… in decades”.

It went on to warn that

“fundamental and hard-won rights are being systematically dismantled.”

In the light of that, I want in the time I have to look at a few key provisions in the Bill, which is part and parcel of that authoritarian attack on our hard-won rights. The very first clause makes no bones about it. Clause 1 explicitly says that the Bill is about restricting

“the protection…to trade unions and employees in respect of strikes”.

Moving on to the schedule, it talks about the

“Power of Secretary of State to specify minimum service levels”.

The Bill does not specify what the minimum service levels should be, so we have to ask ourselves this question: do we think it is right to hand to the Secretary of State as an individual the power to make such decisions? What level of service requirement would be seen as going too far in the eyes of an anti-union, union-bashing, right-wing Conservative Secretary of State—40%, 60%, 85%, 90%—if there is some trouble in the Tory party, and they want to throw some red meat to their hard-right Back Benchers and party members? This should concern us all.

We then move on to the broad categories of the services covered. How will “education services” or “transport services” be interpreted? Very widely I expect. The Bill states that a work notice must

“identify the persons required to work during the strike and…specify the work required to be carried out”.

This is chilling authoritarianism. Workers who lawfully voted to strike will be ordered to go to work. That is chilling. Finally, work notices offer no protection if a union fails to take reasonable steps. That completely changes the role of trade unions. It is absolutely appalling. Trade union officials will be expected outside the workplace on picket lines, telling workers who voted lawfully to strike to go to work. That completely subverts and changes the role of trade unions and attacks them as institutions. This Bill is appalling—it needs to be dropped.

Industrial Action

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and it brings me on to an important consideration, which is the disparity between the public sector settlements on offer and the average in the private sector at the moment, which has typically been lower. It is right that, as a responsible Government, we have to balance off all these different considerations across the economy. It is right that we consider those running small businesses—tea rooms, pubs and the services sector—in this balance, which is why minimum service levels, as well as minimum safety levels, are right for this economy.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I have listened carefully to what the Secretary of State has had to say, and however he tries to dress it up, this is part of an alarming authoritarian drift. We have an attack on the democratic right to strike, an attack on the democratic right to vote through attempted vote rigging, with the introduction of voter ID, and an attack on the democratic right to peaceful protest. Is the Secretary of State not ashamed to be a member of the most authoritarian Government in Britain in living memory?

[Grant Shapps]

I have heard some stuff at this Dispatch Box, but the idea that this is the most authoritarian Government—has the hon. Gentleman seen what happens in truly authoritarian states, particularly in Marxist states? It is a ludicrous claim about British democracy. Actually, he can help, with his many union links, because all we are saying is that we will take powers to ensure that the minimum safety level exists. We are saying at the same time that we do not need to use these powers; we simply need to get agreement for his constituents and for all our constituents that on a strike day, an ambulance will be able to turn up because national levels have been agreed. That is it, and he should get on board and support this.

Future of Postal Services

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I have been speaking to local posties on the Harehills and Seacroft picket lines in my Leeds East constituency. It is clear that our posties care deeply about this service, but they are being attacked by Simon Thompson and the Royal Mail bosses. There are attacks on jobs, pay and, crucially, hard-won terms and conditions and, of course, the service itself—on the universal service obligation. Only the other Friday, 17,500 postal workers were in Parliament Square because they had had enough of being attacked by Royal Mail bosses and not being supported by the Government. They want to save this service. That is what it is all about.

If we need any further proof that Simon Thompson and the Royal Mail bosses have embarked on a path of confrontation, not negotiation, let us look at the fact that over 100 Communication Workers Union representatives have been suspended during this strike by the bosses. That smells rotten to me, and it looks like an attempt at union busting. We need a real change and solidarity with the Communication Workers Union. Anybody who cares about our public services and the future of Royal Mail should listen to the workers who keep it going day in, day out, in all weathers. Let us support them, and let us have action from the Government to turn this around.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is a separate point that I will come to, if I may. I have yet to hear a convincing case for the need for change to meet users’ needs and ensure the financial sustainability of a universal postal service. I have met with both Ofcom and Royal Mail management to discuss that issue. I have made it clear to Royal Mail that it needs to make any case for change to Ofcom, and that I will fully consider any advice the regulator gives me on the future scope of the universal postal service.

The hon. Members for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) and for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), who I have worked with closely on other matters regarding the Post Office, raised concerns about quality of service. I am aware that over the last few years the business has faced increased pressures on its operations for a variety of reasons. First, there was the covid pandemic and its lingering effects; secondly, operational revisions were required to modernise and transform the business; and, most recently, there was the industrial dispute with the Communication Workers Union. I do not accept the point made by the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) that this is union busting. The management has been clear that there will be no compulsory redundancies, but these issues impact both the business and users of postal services, particularly when important mail items are delayed.

[Richard Burgon]

The Minister rejects my allegation that the bosses of Royal Mail are engaged in union busting, but does he not think it is rather strange that over 100 trade union representatives have suddenly been suspended by Royal Mail bosses in the course of the dispute? Is that not rather odd? What conclusion does he draw from that?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

We do not get involved in negotiations, as Royal Mail is clearly a private company. I welcome the fact that the CWU and Royal Mail are now sitting down with ACAS and trying to resolve the dispute. We should give that process time to reach a resolution. I understand that any strikes have been suspended until the outcome of those negotiations. As I say, the Government are not involved in negotiations because Royal Mail is a private company, but we will monitor the dispute closely, and urge Royal Mail and the Communications Workers Union to reach a resolution as soon as possible.

To ensure that consumers receive an adequate service, Royal Mail is required by Ofcom regulation to, among other things, meet certain performance targets relating to the delivery of universal service products. The regulator has the power to investigate and take enforcement action. Indeed, in 2020 it fined Royal Mail £1.5 million for missing its 2018-19 first-class national delivery targets. Ofcom investigated Royal Mail’s service quality performance in 2021-22, and in doing so considered evidence submitted by Royal Mail of

“exceptional events, beyond the company’s control”

that may explain why targets were missed. In that instance, Ofcom accepted that there had been a continued impact of covid-19 on Royal Mail service delivery, and concluded that

“it was not appropriate to find Royal Mail in breach of its regulatory obligations”.

However, Ofcom was clear that it does not expect covid-19 to have a continuing significant impact on service going forwards. It stated:

“We are concerned by the fact that Royal Mail’s performance in the early part of 2022-23 fell well short of where it should be. We believe the company has had plenty of time to learn lessons from the pandemic, and we are unlikely to consider the factors outlined above as exceptional and beyond its control in future.”

When it comes to renationalisation, we probably part company with many of those on the Opposition Benches who expressed views on the subject, including the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), the right hon. Member for Islington North, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green, who sponsored the debate, the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith), and the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw. I do not believe that renationalisation is the answer. Although there are undoubtably challenges facing Royal Mail, the Government are clear that renationalising the business is not the answer.

One of primary reasons for the sale was to enable Royal Mail to access the capital it needed to invest in and grow the business. When Royal Mail was independently reviewed in 2008 under the last Labour Government, we were told that it was underfunded and had not kept pace with equivalents around the world, which were 40% more efficient. Compare this to the present day: Royal Mail has invested over £2 billion in the UK business since privatisation, including £900 million over the last three years and £441 million in the last financial year in areas such as electric vans, two new parcel hubs, automation and improving its poorest performing delivery offices.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green, mentioned the £576 million pounds distributed to shareholders. I point out that there are good years and poor years in terms of financial performance. In the first half of this financial year, I think Royal Mail declared a £219 million loss. That is in the marketplace, so it is not breaching any confidentiality.

Energy Security

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

I can certainly confirm that in the case of Sizewell C; as I mentioned, we are making sure that the Chinese element of that is no longer involved. We do not have a principled objection, apart from where issues of national security are concerned: clearly, energy provision is very much in our sights.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State to his place. Renewable energy is nine times cheaper than gas, and onshore wind is incredibly cheap and incredibly green, so we need to be clear: the Tory ban on onshore wind has kept bills unnecessarily high, and has also undermined energy security. Is it not time that the ban was fully scrapped and the interests of people struggling with their bills were put ahead of the political interests of nimby Tory Back Benchers?

[Grant Shapps]

It is good that the electorate know what they will be getting if they vote for the Labour party. With us, they will be getting local consent: if people locally are happy to see such power production, they will get it. With them, they will get it willy-nilly.

I want to correct the hon. Gentleman on one fact: the cost projections on new forms of energy supply show that offshore wind is the cheapest available in the next likely bidding round.

COP27

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Monday 21st November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ms Ghani]

Fortunately or unfortunately, I do not read the Scottish Daily Mail, so I cannot picture what that looked like. As I said earlier, our focus is on offshore wind farms and nuclear power. I find it extraordinary that, as we talk about what one would naturally call green issues, the hon. Gentlemen’s party just cannot come to terms with the fact that nuclear power is a clean, green and resilient form of energy on which we should focus as well.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister said at the end of COP that

“Keeping the 1.5° commitment alive is vital to the future of our planet”,

but the Government plan to accelerate North sea oil and gas production. We need deeds, not words. If the Government are serious about keeping 1.5 alive, should they not reject the application for the Rosebank oilfield, the largest undeveloped oilfield in the UK?

[Ms Ghani]

We are committed to 1.5°, which is why we have a net zero strategy and why we hosted and led COP26 and continue to lead at COP27. I have already spoken about the number of programmes, policies and investments that we are making. Between 1990 and 2019, we grew our economy by 76% and cut our emissions by more than 44%, decarbonising faster than any other G7 country. Those are not words; those are deeds.

The hon. Gentleman talks about oil and gas. As I have said, the UK remains fully committed to its COP promises. We will continue to progress the expansion of renewable energy to generate 95% of electricity from low-carbon sources by 2030. No other major oil-and-gas producing nation has gone as far as the UK in addressing the role of oil and gas in their economy. The opening of the most recent licensing round by the North Sea Transition Authority followed the publication of the climate compatibility checkpoint, and it should be seen in the context of the North sea transition deal. That includes emissions-reduction targets consistent with the Government’s net zero strategy, which establishes the UK’s pathway for meeting carbon budget and international targets.

Public Ownership of Energy Companies

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Murray, and a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood), who always makes such a compelling case for public ownership. I was pleased that she mentioned the escalating privatisation of the national health service, which she has worked hard to expose. It seems to me, and to many others, that the Government have an ideological opposition to public ownership: no matter the evidence, reality or public opinion, the Government will resist it.

Let us take a look at the petition that secured today’s debate: 109,000 people signed it, showing the strength of support for bringing energy into public ownership. A Survation poll this year showed that not a bare majority of the public, but 66%, believe that energy should be in public ownership. That includes a majority of Conservative party voters, and maybe even members too. The energy sector is being used as a cash cow for shareholders. We have an energy system that is privatised at every single stage—generation, transmission, distribution and supply. That means that at every opportunity, profits are extracted so there are higher bills for ordinary people, and so there is less investment and a worse service, resulting in a failure to make the green transition work.

Let us take the big six energy suppliers. Common Wealth shows that £47 billion-worth of dividends and share buy-backs have occurred since 2010. That money should have been in a public system, but it goes much deeper than that. Even the National Grid is paying out billions each year in dividends. It is lose-lose for everyone, apart from those who own our system. Who does own energy? Other states have bought our system, as is the case with EDF, for example. So have billionaires. Northern Powergrid is owned by the US billionaire Warren Buffett. UK Power Networks is owned by the Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-shing.

The high prices are not just about the global crisis. Of course, we are in a global crisis, but privatisation makes it much worse. In many other countries, energy bills have not increased as they have here. Their Governments are using public ownership as a tool to help people. In France, for example, publicly owned EDF kept energy bill rises to just 4% in April 2022, while our prices soared and soared. Norway has been paying 80% of people’s bills above a capped price.

Even before the current energy crisis began, domestic energy bills steadily increased by 50% in real terms—inflation-adjusted—from 1996 to 2018. We see and people out there feel what privatisation means in practice. In practice, privatisation of our energy system means higher bills than needed. Research shows that prices are 20% to 30% lower in systems with public ownership. Privatisation means, in practice, wasting vital funds on lining the pockets of shareholders. Privatisation means, in practice, failing to invest enough in connecting renewable energy to the grid, with the needs of the current fossil fuel firms put first.

What is the way forward? This petition, signed by well over 100,000 people, shows the way forward: nationalise the big five energy supply retail companies, most of which are just owned by bigger companies anyway. I welcome the plan from the TUC setting out how a publicly owned energy retail system could deliver a social pricing structure that lets everyone afford the energy they need to cook, clean and stay warm all year round, while the wealthiest with extravagant energy use pay more per unit. The way forward is also to bring the privatised monopolies of the National Grid and regional distribution into public ownership to help us prepare for the energy transition that we need. The way forward must include introducing permanent—and high—windfall taxes on North sea oil and gas companies that use the revenues to cut people’s bills, invest in renewable energy and pay for further nationalisation policies that will benefit the country.

We must create a new state-owned renewable energy company to ensure that the errors of privatisation are not repeated. It is useful to reflect on the fact that nine out of 10 countries leading on green transition have a state-owned company leading the way on renewables. We cannot become fixated on continuing and defending privatisation because of ideological dogma and the hero worship of the Thatcher period. As someone once said, “What matters is what works.” Public ownership works; privatisation has failed. Let us have an energy system that puts people and planet before profit. If we do, that is a good way to set about helping to get people through this cost of living crisis and making way for a better, greener, fairer and more decent future.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Richard Burgon Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 25th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dean Russell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Bill is about cutting red tape where it is not needed and ensuring that businesses can spend more time transforming their business than filling out forms. We have a great opportunity to deliver for them and for people across the nation.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

rose—

[Dean Russell]

I will make some progress and give way in a while.

As I said, rather than adapting to support the needs of business, regulation has potentially been holding British businesses back, and we have an opportunity to deal with that. To ensure that the devolved Administrations can also seize fully the benefits of Brexit, we are providing them with the tools to reform retained EU law by extending the majority of powers in the Bill for use by devolved Administrations. It is a great opportunity—

Shale Gas Extraction

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The water for fracking is primarily recycled.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State talks about fracking being in the national interest, but the truth is that fracking is in the corporate interest, which is why this Government are pursuing it. This is going to do nothing to lower people’s energy bills. Renewables are nine times cheaper than gas. At the time when we should be moving away from and ending our reliance on gas, is this push not really about serving the interests of those energy giants, many of which have close links to his party? Is it not about time the Government acted in the interests of the people in Yorkshire and across this country?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

What is the hon. Gentleman going to say to his constituents when there is no gas going into their boilers to heat their hot water and their homes? This ridiculous hostility to gas as a transition fuel is absurd.

Net Zero Strategy: High Court Ruling

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Thursday 21st July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

My hon. Friend is a continuous and doughty champion on behalf of her rural constituents, and she has raised with me previously issues relating to properties that are off the gas grid and the costs of heating oil and liquefied petroleum gas. I am looking at these matters very closely, and have held roundtables both with Members of Parliament and with the industry. I urge her to engage—in fact, I am sure she has already done so—with the trade body, the UK & Ireland Fuel Distributors Association, which will make a strong case that there is a competitive market there. Obviously prices are high—driven by the high global prices of energy, particularly oil—but a price cap, for example, would be an inappropriate means for those companies to use.

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend that the commitment of this party and this Government to net zero is absolute, and one of the strongest in the world.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Oil and gas giants have driven the climate crisis, yet one Cabinet Minister banked £1.3 million from an oil company while a Back-Bench MP, and another has accepted £100,000 from a firm run by an oil trader. I will be tabling a Bill to kick oil and gas money out of politics. Is it not time we did just that?

[Greg Hands]

That is a familiar refrain from the hon. Gentleman, and he ignores a lot of evidence that those same companies are big contributors to our world-leading renewable energy programme. We have Europe’s largest installed offshore wind capacity, we are moving into tidal, we are increasingly moving into onshore wind and we are ramping up our solar ambitions. A large part of our hydrogen production and our carbon capture, utilisation and storage is being done by energy companies. I look forward to seeing whether the Labour Front Bench supports his Bill.