Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Sam Tarry Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 30th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I do not want to be disagreeable, but I do not take that view. I think the Bill has been brought forward as it is because, actually, it is easy for Governments to bring forward skeleton legislation. In my view, it exhibits a general trend in a very acute form. The tendency for Governments to do so goes back many years. Thanks to a House of Lords report, I have a quotation from 1929 from Lord Chief Justice Hewart, who was concerned even then about excess powers being taken. But this Bill puts it in such an acute form, because clause 3 is simply so wide ranging.

I think that this is seeking the easy way to legislate. In my experience, parliamentary counsel, who are among the finest civil servants in the country—the work they do is phenomenal—are never defeated by time, but they are sometimes defeated by political instruction. Had they been instructed to draft a Bill that contained the proper details of what is needed, they would have been able to do so.

[Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)]

I have listened carefully to the right hon. Member’s erudite exposition of the constitutional matters affecting the Bill. I draw his attention to the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), who, in recent discussions with the trade unions, made it clear that this was about one thing only—pay—and that the Government would not “capitulate” to the rail trade unions because they would have to give a fair deal to every other sector going on strike, with the latest being the firefighters.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I agree with what the Bill is intended to do. I think that minimum levels of service are perfectly reasonable and not an outrageous thing to ask; they apply to the police and to the armed services. My objection is not to the aim of the Bill; it is merely about the constitutional process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Mullan]

No, I want to make progress.

Unions have a requirement to represent the specific interests of specific people who pay them to do just that. Union leaders are not invested in the wider interests of society; they are required literally to deliver for the people who pay their subs. I welcome that as an important part of society and how we get good employment law, but it also means that unions are not a benevolent part of the discussion about businesses, society and the economy. They all have interests and they represent those interests. If that is given too much weight, they can hold a business or public service in a fixed point in time, unable to change and move with the times. It is no different from the battle we fought with the luddites. If unions were around at the time of the luddites, I guarantee that they would have been the first to say, “Destroy the machines; get rid of them; we don’t want them!” They will only ever look after the short-term interests of the people they represent. That is not what we as a Government should look at.

To paint these things as black and white is a gross oversimplification of a complex balancing act. Opposition Members try to make out that we on the Government Benches are anti-union. We are not; we are anti unions running the country without balance and with a Government in their pockets. On other issues we might see whether we get the balancing act right by looking to other countries, but I think we can make those judgements on our own. Again, the Opposition are very keen to tell this Government to look to Europe to decide what is good legislation and the right way to protect workers’ rights. Conveniently, on this issue we can give examples of similar legislation in Europe, but they absolutely do not want that.

[Sam Tarry]

The truth emerging in this debate is that if we were to bring ourselves into line with Europe, those on the Government Front Benches would be suggesting collective bargaining levels of 80% or 90%, not the 25% we have in the UK. Will the hon. Gentleman withdraw his remark, because it is simply disingenuous and untrue that the legislation is comparable? The ILO has said so.

[Dr Mullan]

The hon. Gentleman anticipates my remarks. Whenever we say that, Opposition Members want to bring up differences in union law. The Government do not decide to make individual bits of legislation only if they match all the other legislation in a similar environment. This is a separate issue. Whether we have collective bargaining does not mean that minimum service legislation is or is not valid. You either think it is important to have minimum services, or you do not. Determining whether there can be a strike is completely separate from whether there are restrictions on the impact that a strike can have. I will not withdraw that remark; I stand by it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

Let me first refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I notice that not one Conservative Member has referred to their interests in terms of backing from employers, but we will move on.

I want to speak to amendments 39, 42 and 48 and new clause 4. There were 120 amendments tabled to this Bill—a Bill that, in reality, is a page and a half of detail. That would suggest that there are some problems with the Bill. I noted that the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) talked about how terrible the Bill was; he will support it, which is up to him, but he was correct to identify some of the problems with it. There should have been line-by-line scrutiny.

When I heard some of our Conservative colleagues speaking earlier, I was in the middle of changing a password. I had to settle for that wonderful Scottish phrase, “In the name of the wee man!”, because I can only conclude that they were talking about a different Bill entirely from the one before us today and the amendments tabled to it. I am sorry to say that what we have heard from the Government about this Bill in the past few weeks is a deadly political cocktail of arrogance, ignorance, misplaced confidence in their ability and a complete lack of knowledge of a trade union working environment.

Anyone would think, from listening to some of the rhetoric from those on the Government Front Bench in the last couple of weeks, that it was the trade unions that were the bosses, and the employers who were the innocent, downtrodden and low paid. The irony, of course, is that the Government went on strike last summer, without a ballot—they had the ballot afterwards. It was okay for them to go on strike last summer to force workplace change, but it is not okay for people in the fire service, education, health or transport. You really could not make up some of the statements the Government try to get away with.

Indeed, the Government are ignoring existing legislation. Not one Conservative Member in the Chamber today has acknowledged section 240 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which provides for safety and “life and limb” cover. That is a must in existing legislation and there is a custodial sentence if a trade union does not supply it. The Government do not seem to know that, and it is incredible that they do not understand the existing legislation. Emergency “life and limb” cover is already there in legislation.

[Sam Tarry]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. In the recent ambulance and paramedic strikes, it was clear in the action all across the country that those local agreements that protect for life and limb worked pretty well. People did get the service they needed in those emergency situations where life and limb would otherwise have been challenged. Surely the Minister and the Government must listen to that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Saville Roberts]

The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point, but when we are looking at the culture of workplace relations and at productivity, perhaps we should look to Europe. In Germany, for instance, that culture is far more effective and far more productive, so perhaps it is something we should be addressing.

As I was saying, the Bill, as it stands, actively sows the seeds of discord between workers and employers. This destructive approach, which the UK Government seem hellbent on pursuing, will serve only to exacerbate the very recruitment and retention problems that are placing so much pressure on our public services. I therefore welcome the Welsh Government’s commitment to seeking every possible lawful means of opposing the implementation of the Bill in Wales.

It would be remiss of me at this stage not to encourage the Welsh Government to live up to their laudable rhetoric by showing leadership when it comes to public sector pay disputes taking place in Wales. I am sorry to say that, so far, that has been lacking in their approach. It is sad to see the difference between Labour’s message here and its message in Wales, but we are dealing with this Bill in the here and now, and that is our serious problem. I urge the Welsh Government to consider adopting the five-point plan to tackle the health crisis presented by my Plaid Cymru colleagues in the Senedd: that is a result of collaboration, and collaboration brings results—unlike confrontation, which is what we are discussing today.

I remind the Minister that the UK Government cannot legislate their way out of disputes that are taking place because of the pressures on the very public services they have stripped to the bone year after year. Our society cannot function without the thousands of workers who run our hospitals, public transport systems, schools and courts. Sacking people for demanding fair pay and fair conditions for their work is blinkered and short-termist. Why are the Government doing this? Public sector workers and workers in key publicly funded services are not to be demonised. Follow the money—services are creaking and in a skeletal condition, having been starved by 13 years of Tory budget choices. Everything else is cynical window dressing.

[Sam Tarry]

It is an honour to follow that speech from the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), who explained, epically, why people in Wales are so angry. I should begin by drawing the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and I do so proudly, because every pound that has been donated to me has come as a result of democratic decisions made by the thousands of local trade unions members who support me in the work that I do as a Labour party representative.

I wish to speak in favour of amendment 86, tabled in my name, and other amendments tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Easington (Grahame Morris), for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) and for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner). This Bill represents one of the most restrictive, interventionist and incoherent industrial relations strategies that we have ever witnessed in this country. If it is passed in its current form, nurses, firefighters, teachers, bus workers, paramedics, lecturers, pilots, rail workers, solicitors and civil servants—the very same workers whom the Government have praised time and again during the pandemic—will find themselves deprived of their fundamental rights as workers and at risk of arbitrary dismissal, as so many Members have pointed out this evening.

This is nothing more than a sacker’s charter. Hundreds of thousands of workers have taken industrial action this winter. There are individual disputes, but with a common cause: a pay disaster that means that workers are paid significantly less in real terms now than 14 years ago. Today, firefighters have voted in record numbers to take industrial action, saying “Enough is enough” to a Government-created pay crisis. This Government could simply listen: improved pay and conditions could resolve that, not autocratic, poorly thought out legislation.

The Government have often invited comparisons with other European countries, which I find completely disingenuous. As the general secretary of the European Federation of Public Service Unions noted, the Government have failed to mention that unions in those countries negotiate their minimum service levels and do not face anywhere near the excessive balloting rules and thresholds imposed in the UK. As I said in an earlier intervention, European countries with minimum service levels typically have huge levels of collective bargaining—often 80% to 90%—while here in the UK it is around 25%. If the Minister wishes to bring our workplace law in line with that of European neighbours, perhaps he should start there. I have heard so many people say that the Bill is like Australia, France and Germany. It is not. It is more like Turkey, Singapore or Russia.

Amendment 86 would go some way to combating the lopsided relationship put forward in the Bill, by requiring employers to consult recognised trade unions before the imposition of a work notice. After all, every trade unionist I know who runs a local branch is perfectly capable of getting around the table, having a discussion and coming to an agreement—sometimes compromising to do so—in the interests of the workers they represent. The problem is that getting a deal is easy for trade unionists, but this is a no-deal Government who are focused on attacking workers, not resolving disputes.

The Bill is unique not just in its vicious anti-worker sentiment but in the extraordinary powers that it grants the Secretary of State. It leaves a tremendous amount of detail to be decided, as the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) pointed out. It is a constitutional farce. It would deny all Members proper scrutiny. The Government are trying to push the Bill through rapidly, in one evening. That flies in the face of our traditions and democracy, and certainly gives far too much power to the Secretary of State.

I spoke to a representative from the British Airline Pilots Association earlier today. The Bill covers transport, which could include aviation. They expressed serious concerns that the Bill would enable the Secretary of State to overturn the highest-ranking aviation safety officers in the country, and force airlines to run dangerous and potentially understaffed flights. Will the Secretary of State sit in Whitehall deciding on flights coming in or out of London Heathrow or any other major international airport? I would be happy if he banned a few more flights to Mustique and the Cayman Islands, because Members on the Government Benches would probably have more time to spend here working on the Government’s agenda to sort out our country’s parlous state.

It is no wonder the former Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge referred to the Bill as a

“skeleton bill with a supercharged Henry VIII clause”.

It will grant the Secretary of State powers to rule by diktat. We should not be debating such extreme legislation that gives the Secretary of State absolute power to decide which workers will be able to take industrial action and when. It severely restricts the democratic and human rights of millions of people in this country, without the necessary detail or time to scrutinise it properly in this House. That is clearly unacceptable and should not stand.

Turning to the workability of the Bill, outside the clear moral issues that compel Opposition Members to vote against it, it simply will not work. It is utterly dangerous, and will set back industrial relations. It will do nothing to help resolve disputes or support good industrial relations, which I am sure the Minister will agree are the basis of a healthy economy. In fact, it will do the opposite. It will force trade unions to develop other tactics to fight for better jobs, pay and conditions.

If Members will indulge me for a minute, I will give a short history lesson. In the 1940s, order 1305 was brought in during the war to give the Government power to decide, in a similar way to this Bill, to ban strikes in various sectors. Of course, we were fighting a fascist regime and we want to think that all those powers were appropriate, but when they were used it was a huge own goal because they led to significant increases in the number of days lost to strikes. Workers got so fed up that they simply walked out on unofficial strike, and they did so without any trade union involvement, creating a situation where the unions had less say and less influence to reach a resolution or to monitor what was happening. So history shows that this kind of legislation is a total disaster.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Sam Tarry Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 16th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Laura Farris]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. I am coming to all these things, so if he will give me a moment, I will continue.

In the United States, 38 out of 50 states have an outright ban on public sector strikes, including New York. Other states, such as Canada, Australia, Italy and Spain, all have embedded in statute minimum service levels that apply to important public services, and those services are often drawn much more widely than the Government are proposing. They include waste collection, postal services, broadcast services, the administration of justice, water distribution and energy supply.

I pick out those states not as random examples, but because every single one is a member of the International Labour Organisation. They are bound by exactly the same rules as us, and they are among our closest comparators around the world. Even more importantly, the International Labour Organisation has adjudicated all their statutory minimum service levels, and a 2019 publication from the ILO in Geneva commented:

“These examples illustrate the wide diversity of approach that ILO member states have adopted to address the challenges posed by industrial disputes in essential services”.

Minimum service levels

“supported by the ILO’s supervisory organs, exist to manage the balancing act between these necessary restrictions and the individual worker’s fundamental labour rights”.

I have not heard a single Member of Parliament tonight explain to me why the ILO is wrong or why the Government are striking the wrong balance when they have a mandate for what they are doing.

[Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)]

The disingenuousness comes from making comparisons with other nations under ILO regulations, which clearly have a completely different context. For example, the ILO imposes restraints on the circumstances in which such powers can be used, which is the antithesis of the Government’s blank cheque approach.

[Laura Farris]

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I take the opposite position. The United States has an outright ban on public service strikes in 38 states. In December, President Biden made his most recent intervention in union rights when he signed legislation that imposed an outright ban on a national railroad strike. The United States is a founder member, as we are, of the International Labour Organisation. It goes much further, but the ILO has found its ban to be lawful. The Opposition will have to say why all those comparable states, which go much further than us, are somehow acting lawfully, yet we are not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Florence Eshalomi]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sam Tarry]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Loder]

I am sorry; I will not give way to hon. Members, because I have to crack on.

These strikes are not a new or recent development. There have been constant strikes for more than six months among some groups and, in some locations, they have actually been going on for years. We are seeing a rampant appetite for industrial action. We know that is the case, because RMT members have been striking against themselves in the last 12 months. Last week, at the Transport Committee, it became clear that the head of the train drivers’ union not only is a Labour party member, but has a top seat on its executive ruling body. There is a close relationship between the Labour party and the trade unions, which is worth hundreds of thousands of pounds to individual Opposition MPs.

[Sam Tarry]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for being honest about his trade union membership. I wonder what the hundreds of thousands of teachers who just voted to go on strike against his abominable Government think about being called political pawns, when they are striking to look after our children.

[Chris Loder]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that my remarks are about those in the transport industry who are in touch with me and those who represent them. I should say, however, that no teachers in my constituency have been in touch with me to tell me that. The Opposition should take note of that.

I will bring my remarks to a close. As I was saying, the relationship between the unions and individual Opposition Members is worth hundreds of thousands of pounds. The unions are showering the Opposition with hundreds of thousands—millions—of pounds as if it were confetti from the sky. It is absolutely outrageous. We have the privilege of being able to refer to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests when they speak in this House—that is all it takes. [Interruption.] It is all there; I assure hon. Members that there is no influence from trade unions in my entry.

The irony is that we know that Opposition Front-Bench Members have accepted the TUC’s invitation to go to Spain to talk about such things with Spanish unions and to work out how disruption can be caused in this country. There is so much to expose, but I am afraid that I do not have any time left, otherwise I would be happy to say more.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

This is a debate about the balance of rights, and balancing the right to strike of our constituents who work in essential public services with the rights of our other constituents, and their right to get to work, to school, to have their operation, and even in the case of blue-light services, their right to life. That is what we are talking about. The Bill is not about views on the rights and wrongs of the current strikes. It is certainly not an attack on public sector workers, and suggestions otherwise from Labour Members are both disgusting and an attempt to stifle genuine debate.

I deeply value the work of nurses, teachers, firefighters, ambulance drivers and rail staff across Rushcliffe and the country, and of course they should have the right to withdraw their labour. The Bill is about how they can do so safely. The Labour party would have us believe that this is some outrageous attack on workers’ rights—“political violence”, said the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne)—and something that no civilised country could possibly contemplate. No civilised country other than Spain, Italy, Germany, France, or indeed the United States, Australia and Canada, which in some areas have an outright ban on strikes in blue-light services. Normally, Opposition Members idolise Europe’s approach to employment rights, but on the issue of minimum services they are keeping very quiet. Why? It is because their paymasters in the unions do not want to let them do otherwise. I understand, I do—[Interruption.] I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Sam Tarry]

Most Labour Members will be proud of the fact that trade union members in their local branch meetings vote democratically to make donations to local Labour party Members of Parliament. I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw that preposterous, outrageous and untrue comment.

[Ruth Edwards]

I certainly will not, because the hon. Gentleman failed to declare in his intervention that he received £13,000 from unions. I notice there are a lot of proud union members who are not declaring their donations. That is not me being party political—it is a requirement of this House.

I understand the position of Labour Members. It is not easy to turn round to the union barons who have given them and their colleagues more than £1 million in the past four years and tell them that they are wrong. The Bill builds on principles in the Trade Union Act 2016, which put higher vote thresholds on important public services when unions ballot on strike action. It builds on the principle of life-and-limb cover, and will prevent the situation that we had at the end of last year when different ambulance services had different agreements in place with unions. That resulted in a postcode lottery for patients, which is unacceptable.

The Bill complies with the criteria set out by the International Labour Organisation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) set out in detail. In short, the Bill sets out a pathway for workers to exercise their rights safely. It should not be controversial. It has precedent in the UK, all over Europe, and in international conventions. We are making the responsible choice to protect all our constituents. On the Opposition Benches, however, it may be a new year, but it is the same old Labour, still acting as the mouthpiece of their paymasters, the union barons. They have been bought by the barons, and are still doing their bidding.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)]

The Bill is about duty, fairness and balance—nothing more, nothing less. The first duty of any Government is to keep their people safe. The Bill is about ensuring we have minimum levels of safety and service across our essential public services. I heard what the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) said about safety, but when we are talking about ambulances and accident and emergency departments, it is about safety. But it is also about fairness. Due to the hard work and dedication of all the ambulance workers across Essex and all the NHS workers at Southend Hospital—every doctor, every porter and every care assistant—nobody in the wonderful city of Southend and in Leigh-on-Sea has suffered any disruption in the service. They have been served with the same dedication and care every day since the strikes began. Why should those who are not lucky enough to live in Southend and Leigh-on-Sea not get the same service? Of course they should because they are all—

[Sam Tarry]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Anna Firth]

No, I won’t because of the time.

This is about balancing the right to strike with the right to a minimum level of service for those who are paying for it. Of course, the right to strike is something that we on the Conservative Benches consider to be important. It is a key right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)]

I proudly draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

It should be recorded in this House that, in our country’s history of progress, it was the trade unions that ended child labour, it was the trade unions that made workplaces safer, and it was the trade unions that gained us holidays, maternity and paternity pay, paid sick leave, equal pay legislation, pensions, workplace anti-discrimination laws, and even the weekend. The Government would do well to remember that trade unions have made an immensely positive contribution to society. A strong trade union movement is the cornerstone of any healthy, functioning democracy and a more equal, fair and prosperous society. The good news is that trade union membership is on the rise, with a net increase of 200,000 members over the past three years and online inquiries to the TUC surging by 700% this summer. Organised labour is back and it is going absolutely nowhere.

Shocking leaked emails from this Government show that Ministers are deliberating on an outright ban on trade union membership and strike action, and even introducing further restrictions on the democratic right to withdraw labour. Why might that be? Striking workers in various sectors—from bus drivers to BT engineers—have won for themselves double-digit pay rises, as well as better conditions and an end to outsourcing, while public support for strike action is at an all-time high. Many trade union leaders are more popular than any Government Minister right now, in 2023.

The Government’s own impact assessment of the Bill says that it could mean that more action is taken more frequently, as a way to pressure employers. In rail, the Bill seems particularly short-sighted and even at odds with what many train operating companies want. What happens when, as Mick Whelan from ASLEF asked, 100% of passengers try to get on 40% minimum service level trains? Ultimately, the Bill will do nothing to help resolve disputes or support good industrial relations; in fact, it will do absolutely the opposite.

Last week, the Secretary of State told me that ILO common practice authorises minimum service levels, but he neglected to mention that the ILO imposes restraints on the circumstances in which such powers can be used, the antithesis of the blank cheque that the Bill will give him and other Ministers. This Government’s attempts to draw comparisons with minimum service levels in Europe wholly ignore the broader context of industrial relations across the continent, where there are far higher levels of collective bargaining agreements. In fact, I would say that these proposals are more akin to the practice in countries such as Singapore and Turkey, where strikes can be undermined at the whim of the Government. It is totally disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

The Bill will give Ministers extraordinary powers. Firefighters, nurses, teachers and the same key workers the Government have praised will find themselves liable to be prohibited from striking. It is unnecessary. We should not be back to the days of the Tolpuddle martyrs.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

It is half an hour before the wind-ups start and there are more than 10 Members wishing to speak, so do the maths. Please come within the three minutes in order to get everybody in.

Royal Mail and the Universal Service Obligation

Sam Tarry Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)]

It is an honour to speak under your chairship, Ms Ali. I want to start by expressing my solidarity with members of the Communication Workers Union who are taking industrial action for better pay and conditions, and with the Romford amalgamated branch, whose members in the main sorting office are almost a stone’s throw from my office in Ilford. I give a particular shoutout to someone who has been on the picket lines leading the charge: Bill Bishopp, who I like to call the branch secretary. Employees like them are heroes who have worked throughout the pandemic. They have made Royal Mail one of our most beloved national institutions, which, as many Members have said today, our nation—the length and breadth of Britain—relies on. Any future must be one in which its workforce is valued, treated fairly, and paid fairly.

I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne), who has many years’ experience working with Royal Mail, for securing this debate.

In the last year, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) has said, Royal Mail Group announced record-breaking profits of £758 million, £567 million of which was promptly paid out to shareholders. The crazy thing is that just a few weeks later, it announced significant losses, alleging it was losing over £1 million a day. At that point, shortly after, Royal Mail went cap in hand to the Government to plead poverty and ask for permission to reduce its commitments to the universal service obligation from six days to five. That is a wholesale levelling down of Royal Mail, and it has severely jeopardised the viability of the universal service obligation—the cornerstone of an effective and modern postal service.

Royal Mail has consistently failed to hit its quality of service targets in the past five years. As many Members have said, the obligation provides a crucial safety net to everyone in the UK as we all have a fundamental right to request access to a minimum set of communications services at affordable prices. It ensures that no matter where we are, Royal Mail must provide a six-days-a-week, one-price-goes-anywhere postal service. If we lose that universal postal service, countless homes in the UK will lose that safety net and find themselves at the mercy of a broken and imbalanced privatised system, as we have already seen happening over the past decade, that allows providers to cherry-pick the cheap, easy-to-reach customers and ignore those in more remote and less accessible communities.

The Government cannot keep letting Royal Mail off the hook in its consistent failures and must hold it to account. People in this country have to be able to rely on their postal service. As many Members have said today, vital medical letters and urgent bills need to arrive on time. At some point, someone has to say, “Enough is enough.” The company is fundamentally run as a dreadful business, but it need not be run in that way. Surely breaking the USO is in direct conflict with the levelling-up agenda. If the Government claim to champion that in every part of the UK, concerns about Royal Mail demonstrate a levelling down across many parts of our country—perhaps not in my constituency, but, as many Members have said today, in rural constituencies that really rely on the services.

At the same time as Royal Mail sought to tear the USO to shreds, its senior leadership used that mismanagement of funds to justify cutting 10,000 postal jobs and offering a derisory pay rise of only 2%. As we all know, inflation is spiralling up massively on a weekly basis. All the while, Royal Mail leadership retained and recruited agency staff, while engaging in disgraceful fire and rehire tactics to introduce owner drivers, who are on 20% less pay and insecure contracts—effectively turning a national institution into another gig economy employer. It is no wonder that the CWU, which represents 120,000 postal workers, has taken to the picket lines to oppose that disgraceful attack.

Will the Minister condemn those disgraceful employment practices, which almost guarantee a race to the bottom on pay and conditions? If so, what measures will the Government take to ensure that quality, secure jobs in the sector are not replaced by insecure and poorly paid positions? This vital service has been privatised and is run for profit, but I wonder whether the Government might consider something more radical. According to We Own It research, we would save £171 million a year by bringing Royal Mail into public ownership, which is enough to open 342 new Crown post offices, with post banks. Some 68% of the public would love Royal Mail to be brought into public ownership. Doing so would be both popular and practical.

The public have been sending letters by Royal Mail for more than half a millennium. For isolated, vulnerable and elderly people, a friendly face on the doorstep can be a lifeline. One local postie in Ilford, Michelle, told me:

“I’m very proud of the work I do; it’s not just about delivering Mail and parcels. I love keeping an eye out for those who are vulnerable or lonely and having a chat with them to brighten their day. Keeping the spirit of the postman alive for the children as many posties have before me. I’m the eyes and ears for missing pets etc. we are more than just a courier service. We keep the community going…We will not give up on providing the service the public deserves and has known for 500 years.”

If a postie can say that, the Government must consider what on earth is going on, and how we fix it.

Industrial Action

Sam Tarry Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

I simply make the point that it is not the case that we have frozen recruitment, because we have 44,000 more nurses, not fewer—that is an increase rather than a decrease. It is also not the case that we have frozen pay, other than during the aftermath of the financial crash, which as I recall happened under the Labour party and we had to pick up the pieces, and through covid, although not all the way through covid, as I mentioned. Last year, even while the rest of the public sector was experiencing a pay freeze, we made an exception for NHS workers and paid them more, so the hon. Lady’s narrative is simply not true. Again, if the Opposition are saying that they would pay 19% more, I do not understand where that money would come from and whose taxes would be raised to pay for it and the increased interest rates.

[Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It is astonishing: I did not realise that, when we were making the comparison with France and Spain, we were talking about Franco’s Spain and the Vichy regime in France. Many elements of the laws in this country already do not comply with ILO regulations; we are one of the most restrictive anti-worker countries in the world—that is a fact.

I and my constituents would like the Government to stop blowing up the talks with the trade unions, as they did against the NHS over the weekend, with Unite reps coming out of that meeting in a worse state, or against the RMT by dropping driver-only operation into the talks. The Government could end the strikes in multiple sectors; instead they have upped the ante to wage war on working people who are suffering because of their rancid governance.

[Grant Shapps]

At least we know where the hon. Gentleman stands: against the instructions of his Front Bench, it is on the picket lines. He is one of the people who has helped to extend the rail strikes. Driver-only operation has been in there from the outset and there has been no change in that at all. It makes perfect sense and operates on the line that my constituency is on. It causes no problems and is a safe way to operate. It is the kind of modernisation that would help to bring this industrial dispute to a close. I did not follow his point about Franco and the Vichy Government. Spain and France have moved on a bit from that and seem to manage to have minimum safe levels of service on strike days under the International Labour Organisation.

Public Ownership of Energy Companies

Sam Tarry Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)]

It is an honour to speak under your chairmanship for the first time, Mrs Murray. This winter, more than three quarters of UK households will face fuel poverty. Many will have to make impossible choices between putting food on the table or keeping the lights on. We are now at the dystopian point where local councils are forced to open warm banks to prevent people from freezing to death in their own beds. Unfortunately, this was the harsh reality for many across the country long before this current crisis. The UK is ranked sixth highest in long-term rates of excess winter mortality out of 30 European countries; that is literally thousands of people dying from fuel poverty because of extreme costs every single winter.

According to research from National Energy Action, the UK experiences mortality rates of, on average, 32,000 more deaths in each December to March period than across the rest of the year. Of these, 9,700 deaths are directly attributable to the avoidable circumstances of living in a cold home. That is about the same as the number of people who die from breast or prostate cancer each year. How shocking is that? The scale of the surge in fuel bills represents the gravest threat to living standards since the second world war. This winter, as fuel poverty skyrockets and inflation hits a decade-high peak, the impact on families cannot be overstated. Unless dramatic action is taken by the Government, countless people could even die, and that responsibility will lie in the hands of the Government and their friends in the energy lobby.

Thinking locally, my inbox is full of desperate pleas from my constituents—from carers, pensioners, local businesses and ordinary people who have not the slightest clue how they or their business will survive this winter. Sadly, they feel incredibly let down by the people in this House and this Government. They think that their pleas are not being recognised, heard or even valued.

Ilford is a proud and diverse working-class community. I have lived and worked there most of my life, and I am proud to still call it home now. It represents the best of our country: its diversity, industry, entrepreneurialism and communal spirit. However, working-class communities like Ilford are suffering—they are being left behind to freeze this winter. The Government tell us that we must all tighten our belts during this crisis and be prepared to make tough decisions and sacrifices. Why do these tough decisions seem to fall on working-class people every single time, when many at the top think that things have never been so good?

This year, Britain’s oil and gas giants are taking home record profits. Last week, Shell announced profits of £8 billion—double its profits for the same period last year. In August, the big five posted quarterly profits of £50 billion. These energy companies are literally profiteering off the backs of the unimaginable suffering of millions in the UK, paying out huge multibillion-pound dividends and bonuses to their wealthy shareholders. It is an immense cost, and it is hurting people.

It is not as if those companies are running an exemplary service for which they should be rewarded. While supporters of privatisation may claim that it benefits consumers and lowers prices, the opposite has been true. Even before the current energy crisis, domestic energy bills had increased by 50% since energy was first privatised by Margaret Thatcher. The UK energy industry is now so bloated and out of touch that it is unable to deliver for the citizens of this country. I argue that it has, in fact, stifled innovation and held back the fight against climate change. Because the market is so desperately out of control, the UK has lost a decade of potential progress on decarbonising buildings, and that has made the task of decarbonising before it is too late all the more challenging. It is hardly cost-effective for the taxpayer, either. Since June 2021, this Government have spent more than £2.7 billion to bail out these failing energy companies.

It is indeed a great energy rip-off. It has sparked palpable public outrage, with people organising on WhatsApp and the internet about not paying their bills in the same way as with the poll tax revolts in the ’80s. People are sick and tired of being taken for mugs by the ultra-rich who are ransacking the economy and making even more money on a daily basis.

There is clearly an alternative. Private UK energy providers must be replaced by a single publicly owned energy company that is run in a way that involves workers and—more importantly—consumers alike. It is the right thing to do for the families who have been suffering for so long. Bringing those energy companies into public ownership, or, as Labour has proposed, starting a new company that could begin to take control and offer better services for all at cheaper prices, would allow us to put a freeze on any further price increases for the remainder of this Parliament—at least until the end of 2024. There could be cuts to current charges and the company could deliver a moratorium on disconnections.

Bringing energy companies into public hands would also generate huge revenues for the state. Analysis by the TUC shows that the Government are missing out on between £63 billion and £122 billion of direct income over the next two years because of past decisions to privatise power plants and the resulting lack of UK public ownership of electricity generation.

Bringing energy companies into public hands would also truly put Britain back at the heart of the battle against climate change—the biggest issue facing humanity. Indeed, the election in Brazil was won partly on that basis. Research by We Own It found that state-owned utilities invest far more in renewables, as they can make use of the state’s ability to plan for the long term and ensure that more ambitious climate targets become a reality.

UK public energy would accelerate the deployment of new clean power. It could include developing new technologies where the private sector is slow to scale up—priming the pump for the private sector to get with the programme—such as floating offshore wind or zero-carbon hydrogen. It would also deliver thousands of good, green, unionised jobs. Evidence commissioned by GMB suggests that where public bodies invest in renewables directly, orders are far more likely to be placed through UK supply chains, ensuring that we all benefit from the climate transition. Nine out of 10 countries leading the green transition have a state-owned company of some description—why do we always choose, through sheer ideology, to do things differently, when there is something that could work for our country and our people?

The energy companies have proven, time after time, that they cannot be trusted to keep bills at affordable levels or to keep executive pay under control. Public ownership could generate billions for the Treasury. It could be the linchpin for a genuinely revolutionary green industrial strategy that could deliver jobs and transform communities from the top of Scotland to the bottom of Cornwall. It could protect millions across the country from the very worst whims of disaster capitalists who are looking to make a quick buck out of the suffering of others.

Some 66% of the public believe that energy should be brought into public hands. I hope that His Majesty’s Government and the Minister will listen and take action. The ability to make a difference on the issue is in their hands, but I suspect that it will be a Labour Government—hopefully soon incoming—who will begin to deliver the change that this country needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Freeman]

I did make clear that I am not the Climate Minister, so I am not going to make that commitment on his behalf, but I will make the undertaking that he will follow up that specific point with the hon. Member.

I will make some progress and summarise, not least for those listening and watching, the background to this debate and where we have been with British energy policy. Almost four decades have passed since the privatisation of the British energy system began—long enough that I forgive all those watching who may have forgotten why the original decision was taken.

Back in the 1970s, nationalised industries were run by Government, along with many others, and they were in a very bad state, not least the energy industry. These inefficient monopolies were leaking cash, and they needed much more money to upgrade their age-old and similarly leaky infrastructure. Privatisation, beginning in the 1980s, has completely transformed that situation. I am not suggesting that the energy market is functioning perfectly, but it has transformed that situation.

It is a shame that this debate has had so little balance and so few references to any of the successes of any private industry. Indeed, at times it sounded like a Corbynite litany of anti-capitalist, anti-business complaints. This debate needs some balance. I am not saying that the energy market is perfect, but let us at least acknowledge the extraordinary progress in the last few years.

[Sam Tarry]

Will the Minister give way?

[George Freeman]

No, I am going to make some progress. Since privatisation, the UK’s energy sector has attracted around £20 billion a year of private capital investment into our energy infrastructure. That money would otherwise have had to come from higher taxes or additional borrowing. Those are policies that the Opposition may prefer, but we prefer to secure private capital to secure those public goods.

The cost of transporting a unit of electricity has fallen by 17% since the 1990s, while investment has increased. Energy efficiency has gone up. Reliability has increased. Customer service has improved—though it is still not perfect. The number of power cuts has almost halved. These are the real lived experiences of people over the last 30 or 40 years of privatisation. Finally, current market arrangements have allowed for massive decarbonisation of our energy system, with dramatic drops in the cost of renewables.

It is worth making the point that between 1990 and 2019, we grew the UK economy by 76%, and we cut our emissions by over 44%, decarbonising faster than any other G7 country. That is an extraordinary achievement, secured by the private sector working in partnership with Government. There is more. In the last 15 years, not only have we led the way in decarbonisation; we have also led the way in many of the specific areas of clean energy. We have put it at the heart of the UK’s commitment to reduce emissions as we expand our economy.

Personally, having arrived here following the 2010 election, I would have liked to have seen the coalition and the Lib Dem-run Department of Energy and Climate Change take the opportunity of a “buy one, get five free” nuclear deal and double and modernise our nuclear capacity. The Lib Dems were religious in opposition to anything nuclear—a position seemingly mirrored by the SNP—but they also thought it would take too long to come on stream. I have news for listeners. It would have been on stream now. We would have had a high-quality, green, resilient supply of nuclear energy for one more generation, guaranteeing clean and green resilience, and many jobs in Scotland, and we would have been able to use this period to invest in the range of renewables that hon. Members have hardly mentioned. I will come to those in a minute.

Nobody can look back and say that this was all easy. A lot of mistakes have been made, but the truth is that our net zero strategy is the most comprehensive of its kind. The British energy security strategy sets out extra ambitions to those we set out in 2010. It is on track to secure 480,000 well-paid jobs by the end of the 2030s, unlocking £100 billion in private investment by 2030 and mobilising £30 billion of Government investment. That is not the free market with no support from Government. It is a massive programme of Government in partnership with the private sector, and that is why we have driven down emissions at the fastest rate in the G7.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Freeman]

Yes, I did, and the record will show it. Those interested in how we might build a modern energy economy will observe that there was very little detail on how nationalisation will be done. Very little was said about innovation, new sectors, or how we create exciting areas of innovation, use the smart grid, create a network of incentives, penalties, rewards and points, and empower consumers. There was none of that. It was a litany of the same old Labour and SNP anti-business, anti-capitalist talk of profiteering companies. Those are, by the way, the same companies that pay dividends into the pension funds of our constituents—and probably the trade union barons who are lobbying for this nationalisation. It is old-fashioned economics that has been proven not to work. I was hoping to come this afternoon and hear—

[Sam Tarry]

Will the Minister give way?

[George Freeman]

No, I have had enough of giving way. All Members are doing is repeating the same points that we have already listened to, and I want to make some progress.

I will turn to the winter support for energy bills, which is a really important issue and relates to the second half of the petition. We are absolutely committed to reducing the impact on people’s bills of the terrible global events that I have described, including the impact of the war in Ukraine and of the reopening of the global economy after the pandemic. As this Prime Minister and the two previous Prime Ministers have made clear, we are absolutely committed to helping the British public through this, and we are taking action at an unprecedented scale.

First, our energy price guarantee will save a typical British household about £700 this winter. Secondly, that comes on top of the £37 billion package of support announced earlier this year, which will give all households circa £400 off their energy bills through the energy bills support scheme. That means a typical household saving about £1,100. Thirdly, we are taking further, targeted action to ensure that the most vulnerable can stay warm this winter: the UK’s poorest families will continue to receive £1,200 of support—including £400 from the energy bills support scheme—provided in instalments over the year, with additional support for pensioners and those claiming disability benefits.

Fourthly, the Government are investing more than £6.6 billion across this Parliament in critical work to improve energy efficiency and decarbonise heating. We will deliver upgrades to more than half a million homes in the coming years through our social housing decarbonisation fund, home upgrade grant schemes and energy company obligation scheme, delivering average bill savings of £300. Fifthly, we have extended the energy company obligation from 2022 to 2026, boosting its value from £640 million to £1 billion a year, helping an extra 450,000 families with green measures such as insulation.

Sixthly, it is not just households; we are also taking action to support schools, hospitals and businesses. Through the new energy bill relief scheme, the Government will provide a discount on wholesale gas and electricity prices for all non-domestic consumers in Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

This is not the free-market, laissez-faire, devil-take-the-hindmost economics that has been portrayed this afternoon. This is a Government taking huge and unprecedented steps—on a scale with those we took in the pandemic—to help families, households, businesses and charities to deal with the global cost of living crisis. Again, it would have been nice to hear some reference from Opposition Members to the immensity of that package.

I come now to energy profits—an issue that Opposition Members raised. We are not just cutting bills in the short term; we are thinking about how we can guarantee an affordable, clean and secure supply of energy for this winter and beyond. We have listened closely to the public debate about the profits enjoyed by energy generators thanks to high international gas prices. We have not just listened; we have acted. That is why in May we introduced a 25% surcharge on extraordinary profits in the oil and gas sector, which will raise about £5 billion over the next year. That revenue will support our support for those hardest hit by the rise in the cost of living and cost of energy.

We have brought forward primary legislation to give us powers to deliver a temporary revenue limit for renewable generation in the wholesale market. The details of that proposal will be set out in subsequent secondary legislation, and we are committed to collaborating closely with industry to develop it further. This will return a substantial amount of excess profits—profits made through the price surge—to consumers via suppliers.

Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill

Sam Tarry Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 7th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[David Linden]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that. Even the Minister who is piloting the Elections Bill through in the Commons admitted that she had not read the Russia report, so it is no surprise that the Government are so ignorant towards it. It is an indisputable, though regrettable, fact that the Conservative party has previously accepted donations from people who have ties to the Kremlin. Such gifts to the party are legally, if not ethically, legitimate, in so far as they are within current electoral law when properly declared. However, lines have been drawn between senior Conservatives and some pretty unsavoury characters.

[Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[David Linden]

If I may, I will continue.

The genesis of my amendment comes from the fact that the Bill, as drafted, would make provision for an individual to be found to have committed an offence under part 1 of the Bill. The registrar would be able to impose significant penalties which I—indeed, I assume all of us—would support, but without the inclusion of my amendment 63 in the Bill, that individual would still be permitted to participate in UK democracy and, crucially, to donate money—dirty money—to influence our elections. If we leave this loophole open and unchecked, we will be in a perverse position in which Putin’s cronies are still polluting our politics with dirty money, even after they have been sanctioned through the use of the very legislation that we are discussing this evening.

One of the problems of rushing legislation is that we miss many issues that would be found during a proper process of scrutiny by both Houses. As I have said, there is much more than we can do in this regard. I should be interested to hear from the Minister, when he winds up the debate—probably just about now—why the Government would think that this small but important amendment, intended to tie up a loophole, should be rejected tonight. I look forward to his response.

Employment and Trade Union Rights (Dismissal and Re-engagement) Bill

Sam Tarry Excerpts

Friday 22nd October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Laura Farris]

I will return to that point when I address British Airways in a bit more detail.

As I have said to the Minister, we need more than ACAS guidance. I want to see the rules on dismissal and re-engagement set out in an ACAS code of practice, with financial sanctions to back them up. Parliament specifically envisaged the possibility of doing this when it passed the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 207 gives the Secretary of State the power to introduce a code of practice in respect of anything in that Act. Parliament also considered and welcomed the possibility that the Secretary of State would have the power to impose legal teeth. Section 207A addresses the possibility that any compensation can be increased by up to 25% if the employer does not comply with an ACAS code of practice.

We know that ACAS codes of practice can be effective. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) is an employment lawyer and will know that when we think about, for example, the ACAS codes of practice on disciplinaries or grievance procedures, it is vanishingly rare to get into an employment tribunal nowadays and find that the employer was oblivious to those codes of practice. Why do employers know about them? Because there is risk—financial risk. If they go down in the employment tribunal, there could be an uplift on compensation, and they want to avoid that, so we know that it is has the right effect.

What should the code of practice say? We have some of the answers already. The BEIS call for evidence, which was published through ACAS, gives us some clues. I think practitioners made such suggestions very well, including, in relation to paragraph 56 of that report, that employers should provide an analysis of whether changes are anticipated to last for more or less than five years with evidence to substantiate that answer, and, in relation to paragraph 76, that they should provide evidence of reasonable alternatives they have explored and evidence of their financial position.

Another point comes out of the excellent work of the Transport Committee, and I want to pay tribute to the very impressive session it had with Willie Walsh on 11 May 2020. Anyone who has read the transcript will recall that he was asked repeatedly by the Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), whether, if British Airways returned to full profitability, he would restore workers’ wages to their previous levels, and he declined to confirm that he would do so. That created huge exposure for British Airways, and I do not think it is any surprise that, when Alex Cruz appeared before the Select Committee six months later, he gave a rather different explanation.

BEIS would then have the opportunity to require employers to set the criteria that they would exercise in deciding when to restore workers’ pay. I think it would enable the Government to give guidance on this distinct category of dismissals, how they should be treated and what the employment tribunal should be looking for. My final point on this is that it would give the Government real teeth, and it would incentivise employers to do the right thing and give employees more power to enforce their existing rights.

The point has been made, but most of the employers we have cited in this House are considering fire and rehire in relation to large proportions of their workforce. With British Airways, 12,000 people were at risk. If every single one of those people could get an uplift in a compensatory award of 10% to 25%, then—let us be realistic—that might be £10,000 or £20,000 times 12,000. That creates a huge incentive for the employer to do the right thing, because there will be a very significant financial penalty if they fail. That will mean that consultations are entered into with legal advice, which is a good thing, as well as with an open mind and an open spirit.

By the way, consultation is not a meaningless word, as all hon. Members will know. When it is approached in the right spirit, it can often lead to alternatives to the thing that is most feared by the employee. That is the suggestion that I have made to Ministers.

[Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)]

I was one of the members of that Select Committee, and I remember there was very much cross-party agreement that it was such a disgrace for that to happen that the company should not carry the British flag. The point is that the parent company, IAG, had profits in the region of £3.5 billion-plus, there in stages, that it could have used. IAG’s agenda—and this is why I am concerned that what the hon. Member is suggesting may not go very far in discouraging companies—was about driving profits, not about saving the jobs and livelihoods of people, particularly women in their 50s and those towards the end of their careers. It was a restructuring brought in under the guise of fire and rehire.

[Laura Farris]

The hon. Member makes an excellent point, and I just want to pick up on what he said. He points to the fact that the parent company had substantive profits, and that point was made by the Unite representatives who contacted me. I do not think that that case would have survived the employment tribunal in its early stages, as I do not think that it would have crossed the threshold of a sound, genuine business reason. I think the reason why Alex Cruz appeared before your Committee five or six months later and spoke very differently about his plans for pilots, cabin crew and everybody else was because the company was on thin ice, and I think some damaging concessions were made in that session. I think you are right, but I do not think that my solution fails to capture it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

Well of course I do. Who would not agree with my hon. Friend? He will accept that, should we as a House decide that the better approach is through a code of practice, that places great responsibilities on boards of directors and chief executives to abide by that code of practice. It is a better approach. When pressures require extraordinary measures to be taken, time is critical, and everyone is busy—not just within the business, but the advisers and so on, too. That is why the legal approach proposed by the hon. Member for Brent North would in those circumstances be too bureaucratic, not flexible enough and would end up with a worse outcome for employees than is his honourable intention. A code of practice gives those entrusted to make those decisions the right set of things that might otherwise miss their attention. Directors are absolutely aware of their responsibilities under certain aspects of law, but also of their responsibilities under a code of practice.

[Sam Tarry]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is beyond belief to think that a code of practice is enough? We are talking about firms such as Clarks, where workers who make kids’ shoes are currently on strike. It was recently bought up by a Hong Kong-based private equity firm. Are such firms going to pay any attention whatever? It is just the same as BA. Its parent company IAG had £3.5 billion in the bank and it did not pay any attention even to British laws at that particular time. It was trying to circumnavigate them. It seems to me that a code of practice will not even be worth the paper it is printed on. Does he agree?

[Richard Fuller]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I am not particularly aware of the particular circumstances to which he has spoken, but the intention of the suggestions of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury is that there would be some form of power behind that code of practice to encourage businesses so that we can eliminate those limited examples where companies are misusing fire and rehire. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to speak to the junior—sorry, the Minister, my hon. Friend; I should never call him junior, he is very senior. The hon. Gentleman may wish to raise that point directly with the Minister, if he has not already.

In closing, I say to the hon. Member for Brent North and the SNP spokesperson that through their diligent efforts, they have raised an issue where some measured change is required. The hon. Member for Brent North might find that the approach of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury is a better approach, but with the dignity with which he has proposed this Bill today and the way in which he has shown his willingness to speak to others, there is no dishonour in proposing and pushing something if ultimately there is a different way for us to achieve that objective.

Supporting Small Business

Sam Tarry Excerpts

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)]

The impact of the covid pandemic has been excruciating for many people in Ilford South and for the majority of people in this country, not least the many who run businesses and their workers, and this is now coupled with the steep rise in living costs and the supply chain crisis caused, to be honest, by Brexit and the Government’s indecisive action as well as the global pandemic. Too many businesses in this country are now at breaking point, so we are debating today not just business rates but how imperative it is for the Government to give greater support to all sectors of our economy to ensure we emerge stronger, and especially to the small and independent businesses that are the bedrock of economic success in Britain, certainly in my constituency.

We on this side of the House have set out clear plans for how a Labour Government would increase the small business rates relief threshold from £15,000 to £25,000, exactly the kind of welcome tax cut small businesses so desperately need, and a future Labour Government would go further, scrapping business rates and putting in place a fairer taxation system that supports small businesses and boosts local economies such as that of Ilford South. Sadly, however, this Government have demonstrated time and again that “build back better” is little more than hollow rhetoric from a tired Cabinet devoid of ideas that has repeatedly let down so many people through a catalogue of policy failures, whether the derisory 1% pay rise for NHS workers, slashing welfare support for the most vulnerable in our society, or hiking national insurance for everyone. The failure to address business rates is the latest kick in the teeth for millions across this country.

In my constituency there are now 7,975 unemployment benefit claimants—8.4% of the population aged under 64. The number of new claimants has increased by 4,795, more than doubling, since just a year ago in March 2020. People are really suffering, and getting businesses back on their feet is crucial to moving us forward.

This is not just rhetoric; there are cold, hard facts that the Government are increasingly choosing to ignore. The Office for National Statistics published data last week revealing that a staggering 332,000 businesses are at risk of closure in the next three months; in the capital alone, that figure stands at 62,000. In Ilford South, over the past year the number of medium-sized businesses fell by 11%, and although smaller businesses and microbusinesses are doing well they need the right support to become sustainable and provide stable longer-term employment.

Understandably, the business sector has been united in its alarm at the current direction of travel. The national chair of the Federation of Small Businesses yesterday said that the ONS figures demonstrated

“just how desperate the need for business rates reform is.”

To give some sense of just how desperate businesses are, the British Retail Consortium has claimed that four out of five retailers will have to close branches if business rates are not alleviated. That was compounded by the Confederation of British Industry, and almost 50 trade associations representing a quarter of all jobs in Britain, adding that up to 50% of business investment is being harmed by business rates under the present system. Cutting those rates would unlock billions of pounds of investment in our economy and keep millions of people in work. The CBI’s chief economist was also crystal clear:

“Any can-kicking—or further business tax rises—would be seen a lost opportunity by firms of all sizes given the desire from both business and government to really go for growth.”

This was echoed by the director general of the British Chamber of Commerce, who last month stated emphatically that the current arrangements are

“a barrier to investment and cause an unnecessarily large burden to be placed upon businesses regardless of their ability to pay.”

That is a resounding call to action now.

If this Government will not listen to the overwhelming concerns of British businesses, perhaps they will listen to those on their own Benches, including the right hon. Members for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) and for Tatton (Esther McVey) who, on behalf of the Northern Research Group and Blue Collar Conservativism respectively, have called on the Chancellor to slash business rates, saying that

“failure to act will risk the party losing a string of northern seats at the next election.”

“Build back better” is not really turning out that way for small businesses.

Small independent businesses, which are the backbone of our communities, should not be made to pay the price for the pandemic. They need support, and they need it now. That is why we brought this debate forward today. I will be interested to hear whether the Minister can tell the House how we can expect to recover if we have let thousands of the businesses that prop up our economy go to the wall, as they have in Ilford South, with that 11% drop.

Just this week, the manager of Ilford business improvement district told me that covid has taken

“a catastrophic toll on many of our stakeholder businesses,”

adding that the majority are

“working their way back from the cliff edge of permanent closure in the midst of supply shortages, staff shortages, rising staff and operational costs”.

That comes on top of the withdrawal of support measures such as the furlough scheme, business rates relief and reductions in VAT.

One hotelier I spoke to expressed concerns about the impact of rising energy costs, the shortage of staff since Brexit and, again, supply chain shortages, which are leading to a never-ending situation of one problem after another. That hotelier, Ikram, and many others like him in Ilford South have requested breathing space in the form of a reduction in business rates, or at least a one- year exemption.

The Government must urgently initiate a full and fundamental review of business rates and look to permanently maintain the reduced 12.5% VAT rate for sectors such as the hospitality industry, as well as considering extending that offer to retail businesses. They must also look to offer further business rates relief and consider a similar phased approach in the next financial year, with a 60% threshold to support businesses.

The Government talk a lot about levelling up; they also need to level the playing field. Amazon and the like have made huge profits during the covid crisis while paying next to nothing in taxes as a proportion of their profit, often undercutting local high street shops and leaving so many high streets with boarded-up shops. We need to shift the burden of business taxation away from the high street and towards global online tech giants by adopting a higher global minimum rate of corporation tax to stop major tax dodging.

The pandemic has shown that taking an economic approach in which we are not afraid to intervene when necessary to protect our workers’ jobs and local businesses is surely better than taking one that sacrifices everything in the name of the market, with public sector commercialisation, communities destroyed by disappearing jobs, national identities distorted and, of course, environmental catastrophe. Pay increases and tax avoidance at the top warp any sense of social inclusion, and progressive and redistributive taxes seem to fall from the political agenda as so many workers face the perpetual slog of longer hours in ever more insecure work as white-collar jobs are outsourced and blue-collar jobs go abroad.

The power and unaccountability of global tech giants is now impacting our very democracy. We must use this moment to lay a different pathway for our economy, because there most definitely is an alternative.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sam Tarry Excerpts

Tuesday 6th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

What steps he is taking to support high street businesses.

[Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)]

What steps he is taking to support high street businesses.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)]

Our comprehensive economic response to business is worth more than £352 billion, including grants, the furlough scheme, tax deferrals, and business rates relief. We have extended the protection of commercial tenants from eviction and debt enforcement due to non-payment of rent until 25 March 2022.

[Paul Scully]

It is important, yes, that first we reopen. I am glad that the Prime Minister is making encouraging signs regarding 19 July, so that small businesses in particular can welcome back customers and start to recover; that helps get into the recovery. We will continue to flex and extend our support for those businesses. Much of that support extends to September and beyond.

[Sam Tarry]

Businesses in Ilford represented by Ilford business improvement district have been damaged so severely by the pandemic, often closing or finding their revenues down to about 30% of what they were pre pandemic. Many of those businesses now have significant debts and rent arrears. I would like to know, as would businesses in Ilford, what plans the Minister has to support the thousands of businesses struggling to pay their rent.

[Paul Scully]

I have talked about reopening and recovery. We need to build back better and build resilience into our high streets and the ecosystems that make our communities. We have extended the moratorium on rents until next year so that we can legislate to encourage proper conversations between landlords and tenants. We are also reviewing the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Sam Tarry Excerpts

Tuesday 9th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)]

We have many important sectors in our country that will hopefully be the engine of growth in the future, but which need support in the short and medium term—not least public transport. Sadly, there was very little in this Budget on transport. What we did see were mostly drastic cuts, with transport funding slashed from £13 billion to just £2.1 billion for the current financial year at a time when ridership levels are at record lows and operators are struggling to balance the books. Furthermore, funding for transport capital projects was cut from a meagre £600 million to zero, while intra-city funding has been delayed until at least 2022.

The lack of pandemic support has already had a profound impact on those who work in the transport sector, with over 1,000 jobs lost in both the bus and coach manufacturing industries—mostly, unfortunately, again in the north of England. And all this is at a time when the fuel duty freeze is costing the Government the best part of £1 billion, sending a clear message about where their priorities lie in terms of their decarbonisation agenda.

What hope is there for the ordinary worker who wants to return to work but is faced with a rise in rail fares and cuts to bus routes, which, in recent years, have seen 134 million miles lost? Where is the Government’s much heralded bus strategy, which was supposed to have been published last year? There was not a word of this in the Chancellor’s statement or, indeed, any update on the commitment to unveil 4,000 zero-emission buses, which can only lead us to conclude that their decarbonisation agenda has missed the bus. As the MP for Ilford South, I watch in dismay as the Government continue to level down London’s transport network rather than truly levelling up the midlands and the north.

The Budget was a pivotal moment for the climate emergency and jobs crisis, but next to nothing was announced for a new economic green recovery. There is no new investment for green recoveries in key industries, including automotive, aerospace and steel. Just £20 million was announced for floating offshore wind technology. Labour has called for a £30 billion green economic recovery, which would create 400,000 secure jobs in clean industries.

Earlier this week, the Chancellor boasted about kick-starting a green industrial revolution, but in reality the Government have slashed climate spending in this Budget, including a devastating £1.1 billion reduction in the green homes grant. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) pointed out, we are lagging far behind our European and global partners, with the US’s recent $1.7 trillion green plan over the next decade, while Germany and France have pledged a combined total of €70 billion over the next two years. Mass unemployment should not be inevitable in this pandemic, but the way that the Government are carrying on, it unfortunately could be.

At a time of acute and prolonged national crisis, there is an opportunity for the Budget to be more than one that drives a new political economy—one of investment to create well-paid jobs, the renewal and expansion of infrastructure projects to fit out our country for the century ahead, and a world-leading acceleration of a green industrial revolution to lift our nation up through an active industrial strategy, not buzzwords, tax-evading freeports and pork barrel projects to shore up Tory ambitions.