Rural Postal Services: Sustainability

Stephanie Peacock Excerpts

Wednesday 25th October 2023 Westminster Hall

[Jamie Stone]

My right hon. Friend represents the furthest constituency—even further away than mine—so he indeed knows what he is talking about.

Money is lost. There are, however, other ways to ensure the sustainability of rural post offices. We have heard how we can do this from the numerous interventions, for which I thank all hon. and right hon. Members.

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and for tabling this important debate. There has been an issue in my constituency—which I think can be described as semi-rural—with the post office in Darfield regularly not opening. I am hopeful that we will have a solution, and perhaps the Minister can pick up on this, because it has been tricky to get the Post Office to act when there have been regular closures. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it has a real impact when residents cannot access the post office due to regular closures and the travel time is not sustainable?

Football and Dementia

Stephanie Peacock Excerpts

Thursday 14th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) and my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) on securing this important debate.

Football is at the heart of so many of our communities, bringing people together in both victory and defeat. At all levels, playing football brings immense benefits to our physical health, mental health and sense of belonging. But despite its contribution to our society, culture and economy, there is now increasing evidence that footballers in both the men’s and women’s game are at greater risk of dementia. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) suggested, former footballers may be 3.5 times more likely than others to die from a neurodegenerative disease. In recent years, we have seen many of our beloved former players live with, and tragically die as a result of, dementia. That link must be taken seriously. Action is needed to prompt new research to inform our understanding of the issue and to ensure that responsibility is taken across the board for the welfare of players at every level.

That action matters. It matters for the former players and their families who have already experienced the life-shattering impacts of dementia, often without any recognition or support. It matters for players in the midst of their career, who must be equipped with accurate information and supported in taking preventative measures. And, of course, it matters for families up and down the country, so that adults and children alike can continue to participate in football and feel certain they are enjoying its benefits, as the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) highlighted in the context of the women’s game.

Research is vital to progress in both the prevention and treatment of football-related dementia. Published in the same year as Alan Shearer’s ground-breaking documentary “Dementia, Football and Me”, the 2017 University College London and Cardiff University study was among the first to identify a connection between professional footballers and dementia. Since then, studies from the University of Glasgow, the Drake Foundation and the University of East Anglia have only solidified our understanding of that link, as my hon. Friend the Member for Easington highlighted. Those studies, alongside the tireless campaigning of former footballers and their families, have been absolutely crucial in prompting change.

From the advice that children under 12 should no longer head footballs in training to the newly established Brain Health Fund, it is to the credit of every researcher and campaigner involved that the first protections and support measures have now been put into place. However, that momentum must continue. Further analysis will be critical to ensure the sport is able to take the correct preventative measures, and to offer meaningful support to those already impacted. I therefore look forward to hearing from the Minister what the Department has been doing to encourage and support research, as well as to work with football governance to ensure that it is ready to take any necessary actions as soon as possible.

Local Radio: BBC Proposals

Stephanie Peacock Excerpts

Thursday 22nd June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

Today’s debate has illustrated the power, benefit and importance of local radio across the UK. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) on opening the debate so powerfully. He was absolutely right when he said that local radio is trusted like no other.

To see that in action, we need look no further than Radio Sheffield. There are so many examples of how this is done. There was an interview this week with Tomekah George from Sheffield, who designed one of the special stamps issued by Royal Mail to mark the 70th anniversary of Windrush. Then there is Toby Foster, who held Sheffield City Council to account on the tree-felling inquiry. This week, Sheffield City Council issued a full and unreserved apology, which was covered on “News at Ten” on Tuesday evening. But for years it was Radio Sheffield that was holding the council to account and providing a voice for concerned residents. That is the powerful role that it plays in local democracy—from helping to force an important policy change to interviewing Barnsley’s youngest councillor, Abi Moore, who was elected to serve the Dearne South ward at the age of 20. Then there are the super local traffic updates, such as on the recent roadworks on Summer Lane in Wombwell. This is the local granular information and content that my constituents in Barnsley find invaluable.

The changes that the BBC have proposed put such content at risk, potentially marking the beginning of the end for local radio altogether, as the NUJ has warned. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) rightly paid tribute to the hard work of the NUJ in representing workers. He also rightly pointed out that there has been little attention paid to the digital divide, a point echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist).

It has now been eight months since the BBC announced its intention to reshape those crucial services so that content on local radio stations is regionalised after 2 pm and on weekends. In that time, despite appeals, strikes and multiple debates on the Floor of this House, the BBC has shown no sign of pausing to assess that approach. Instead, it has repeatedly insisted that those reductions, alongside a boost to online services, are the right thing to do.

It is in that context that I join my colleagues from across the House, on behalf of our constituents, in urging the BBC to finally look at the true cost of the plans and to reconsider its decision. Of course the BBC is rightly both impartial and independent, but we are elected to this place to give voice to the concerns of our constituents, and that is what everyone in this debate has done, right across the UK, from Great Grimsby to Kingston upon Hull, Worcester, the Isle of Wight, Southend West and Strangford.

The BBC’s independence should also not keep it from making decisions that are informed, transparent and in the interest of our communities. It is one of the BBC’s public purposes to reflect, represent and serve the diverse communities of all the nations and regions of the United Kingdom, yet when proposing the changes to local programming that would directly threaten the delivery of that purpose, the BBC has failed to consult any of the communities that would be impacted, as the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) rightly pointed out. I echo the calls he made in his speech.

Likewise, the BBC remains unable to present any assessment of the impact of the changes. The National Federation of the Blind of the UK has directly requested the BBC’s equality impact assessment and the public value test regarding the plans, but the BBC said it was exempt from sharing them. As a public service broadcaster, funded through the licence fee, the BBC owes more to the public on how and why such decisions are made about its programming, particularly when they disproportionately impact marginalised groups and those with protected characteristics. It is largely older people, those with disabilities, the lonely and those who are digitally excluded who will be heavily impacted by these changes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) said.

It is important that the BBC listens directly to those people, and I would therefore like to share some of their stories today, starting with Sarah from Leicestershire. Sarah is visually impaired and says that the changes to local radio would isolate and exclude many visually impaired, blind and disabled people such as her. Sarah is fortunate to be able to access the internet and is comfortable using technology, but if the text on any given website is not spaced properly—as she claims it often is not on the BBC website, despite the BBC’s insisting otherwise—her text-to-speech function does not work, leaving her to describe the pages as not accessible in any shape or form. BBC local radio is therefore an essential information service for Sarah and it was vital in protecting her during the pandemic—as many others said, including my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck).

Like Sarah, Annette, who is a volunteer for the charity Gig Buddies, said that many disabled people cannot or do not want to access information online or using digital devices. They just want to be able to tune in through their FM radio, which often has accessible buttons and switches rather than touchscreens, at any time of day and hear local community information. Neil from Dronfield is blind, housebound and suffers with a head injury. He says that his local radio station, BBC Sheffield, is extremely important to him for accessing information and hearing local accents each day. As it stands, the BBC is looking to take that away, with nothing to offer as a replacement. For people such as Neil, Sarah and Annette, there is no alternative.

For others, such as Angela in London, local radio has long provided companionship that simply cannot be replaced. For a few years, she says, BBC Radio London was her only entertainment and, for several months, her only communication. She speaks so powerfully about the experience that I would like to share it with the House, saying, “I heard no other human say my name other than when Jo Good or Robert Elms read out an email I’d sent in. Local radio has the power to make another less alone, to have your voice heard and to feel part of something when the world has forgotten you.” Angela also says that the presenters felt like her friends and that there is an innate intimacy about hearing discussions about her local area and the streets that she and those before her grew up in. Clearly, truly local programming means something to people such as Angela—something that the BBC fundamentally failed to grasp when announcing the changes.

The changes to local radio are also having a profound impact on the BBC’s workforce, with roles in audio teams reducing by more 100. As well as the loss of experienced talent and local knowledge from forcing out radio presenters and producers, the changes will also see a key pipeline for broadcasting and journalistic talent cut off.

Members across the House—the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), and my hon. Friends the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) and for York Central (Rachael Maskell)—have expressed concern about the treatment of workers by the BBC, and I add my voice to theirs.

Local journalism is a fragile ecosystem. The BBC plans to increase digital output in place of local radio, but that will put undue pressure on the system, as I have said in this House before, by providing unwanted competition to local papers and other media outlets that are, as the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) said, already struggling to stay afloat. That is not to mention the significant impact on local democracy: local radio currently holds councillors, MPs and national politicians to account in a way that no other outlet can.

While Tim Davie, the director general of the BBC, describes loyal local listeners as only “13% of the population”, we recognise that 5.4 million people are not a fringe group but an important audience made up of people who do not have an alternative way of accessing their community or local news. That is what the BBC has failed to understand: people truly value and need their local radio. These changes are the thin end of the wedge in taking it away. Once local radio is gone, it will be gone.

This debate has shown that there is strong feeling across the country that the BBC should think again about its decision, or, at the very least, pause and review it. It seems that the only person who thinks it a good idea is the director general himself. My local paper, the Barnsley Chronicle, quoted staff who described the BBC as either ignorant or arrogant. The fact that it has come to that stage is a reflection of how poorly this whole situation has been handled, and it is an incredibly sad state of affairs.

I hope that Tim Davie has listened to the calls and contributions made today. If he will not listen to our constituents up and down the country, I hope that he will listen to Sarah, Annette, Neil and Angela, all of whom rely on their local radio. I hope that he will listen to the representatives of his hardworking staff who are facing cuts and redundancy. I hope that he will listen to the charities that are concerned about the lack of local consultation and disability impact assessment. The director general can convince himself all he likes that his decision is the right one, but I am afraid that everyone else thinks he is wrong.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before I call the Minister, may I say that Mr Speaker and I share Radio Lancashire, an excellent local radio station that we value greatly for the reasons we have heard in this excellent debate. No pressure, Minister.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Stephanie Peacock Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 22nd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

I declare an interest as a trade unionist with more than 50 years’ experience and as a proud member of Unite the Union. I rise to speak in support of amendments 5 and 4, tabled by Lord Collins and Baroness O’Grady, among others, but before I turn to the substance of those important and thoughtful amendments, I want to say that no number of amendments could ever make the Bill acceptable to those of us on this side of the House who believe in the fundamental right of workers to pursue fair and equitable treatment at work. Its central purpose—to prevent workers from exercising their right to take strike action—is an affront to the most basic principles of democracy, and the idea of forcing a worker to cross their own picket line strikes at the heart of trade unionism.

Not for the first time, this Government have suffered the ignominy of being condemned by the international community for their deviation from democratic norms, with 121 politicians from more than 18 countries recently condemning what they described as the

“the UK Government’s attempt to limit workers’ rights and its attempt to justify it with comparisons to international norms.”

The Bill’s specific provisions, especially those that seek to make unions liable for the actions of their members who fail to adhere to work notices, betray an utter ignorance on the part of Ministers about the nature of employment relations in the UK. The Bill is opposed not just by the trade unions, but by the vast majority of the business community. Paul Nowak, general secretary of the TUC, expressed the feelings of many when he said that the Bill will serve only to poison industrial relations in this country and exacerbate the disputes that it seeks to end. This is yet another dangerous gimmick from a Government who at every stage have refused to settle demands for fair pay from public sector workers.

I want to single out Lords amendment 4, tabled by Baroness O’Grady, which would provide a much-needed safeguard for workers from the almost inevitable exploitation of work notices by unscrupulous employers. Amendment 5, tabled by Lord Collins, would excise proposed new section 234E, which would oblige trade unions to ensure that their members comply with a work notice. That is surely one of the most abhorrent measures in the entire Bill. It would in effect compel trade unions to undermine the effectiveness of their own lawful actions. It is a proposal as ludicrous as it is alarming and it should be consigned to the scrapheap.

I have closely followed the contributions in the other place concerning the Bill and salute the attempts to mitigate the worst excesses of what nevertheless remains a vindictive, anti-democratic and unworkable piece of legislation. I have no doubt whatever that Government Members will refuse altogether to listen to the concerns raised in the other place, and I say with absolute certainty that the Government will shortly come to regret this deplorable attempt to restrict the rights of their citizens.

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

I am pleased to speak in this important debate in support of Lords amendments 4 and 5 to the minimum service levels Bill. As a proud member of a trade union, I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

The Bill is a fundamental attack on working people’s rights and freedoms, meaning that workers are at risk of being punished for exercising their right to strike. As someone who has been on strike as a teacher, I know that the decision to withdraw labour is not an easy one; it is a last resort when workers feel they have no other option; when conditions and pay are no longer tolerable.

The Bill would make seeking an injunction easier and broaden the circumstances that allow this process to take place. Therefore, where strikes are fairly balloted and otherwise lawful, employers would have more scope to be able to bring an injunction against trade unions under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, potentially putting a stop to fair industrial action and flying in the face of fundamental workers’ rights. As the Bill broadens the circumstances under which minimum service levels apply, that means a poor employer could issue a work notice where one is not needed, to workers they know are part of the trade union, and sack them for failure to comply with the notice when they strike, as they are likely to do. The Bill allows scope for bad employers to use loopholes to target specific employees. Amendment 4 seeks to prevent this from being possible; it would be a huge backward step. Amendment 5 aims to ensure that unions are not obliged to ensure that their members have to comply with work notices, which would undermine their own otherwise lawful strikes.

Furthermore, the Joint Committee on Human Rights says that the penalties imposed on trade unions and workers for failing to comply with work notices are “severe” and that the Bill would be likely to lead to disproportionate involvement from employers, particularly where a strike does not involve risk to life and limb. The Committee said that the Government should reconsider whether “less severe measures” would be more effective. Lords amendment 4 would prevent workers from being vulnerable to dismissal for failure to comply with a work order.

The Bill is unworkable and the Government know it. The Transport Secretary admits that it will not work, the Education Secretary does not want it and the Government’s own regulatory watchdog has called it “unfit for purpose”. It offers no solutions and it would not have prevented the recent wave of industrial action. It is a distraction from 13 years of failure. So why are the Government insisting on pushing ahead? They have rushed this through Parliament, presented the findings of the impact assessment to the Bill late and provided only four and a half hours for the Committee of the whole House.

There are serious concerns about how the Bill will be implemented in practice. In countries such as Spain and France that already have minimum service levels in place, more days have been lost to strikes than in the UK and that can lead to legal battles, which further delay solutions to industrial action.

In 1984, striking mineworkers in Barnsley were branded “the enemy within” by the Government when they went on strike to defend their industry. We still feel the economic effects of that political attack. Today, the Government are again blaming hard-working people—this time, for the Government’s economic failure.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in support of all the Lords amendments, but I especially want to focus on Lords amendment 4 and Lords amendments 5 to 7, because they are about protecting two key democratic principles: the rights of the worker to withdraw their labour; and the role of trade unions to represent workers—and not bosses and not the Government—when workers decide to withdraw their labour.

Lords amendment 4 would mean that a failure to comply with a work notice would not be deemed to be a breach of an employment contract, so the person could not be dismissed as a result. Lords amendments 5 to 7 would ensure that trade unions do not have any responsibility to ensure that their members comply with the work notice. We need to be clear about what the Bill is about and why the Lords amendments are necessary. The Bill is about perverting the role of trade unions in our democratic society. It is about trying to turn the trade unions into not the servants of workers, but the servants of bosses, or even the servants of a Conservative Government.