Birmingham Bin Strikes

13:22:00

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if she will make a statement on the Government’s response to the Birmingham bin strikes.

Members will be aware of the continuing disruption caused by industrial action in Birmingham. I want to be clear that Birmingham city council is an independent employer and that this dispute is between the council and Unite the trade union. The Government are rightly not a party to it, but of course we have an interest in it, recognising the impact on local residents. This Government’s priority remains Birmingham residents, and we will continue to support the council to keep Birmingham’s streets clear while the dispute remains ongoing. Thousands of tons of waste have been removed, and routine collections have been restored. The council continues to monitor the situation closely to ensure that waste does not build up again. The background to the dispute is the historical equal pay issues the council has faced, which have been the source of one of the largest equal pay crises in modern UK history, and that has to be front of mind. The council has been in negotiation for many months, making a fair and reasonable offer to Unite and being clear about the need to protect its equal pay position. The union rejected the council’s offer. The council has worked hard to offer options to affected workers, including a transfer into other roles in the council on the same grade and, in some cases, to upskill those workers in scope. An enhanced voluntary redundancy package is also available for those who wish to leave the service, and there has already been significant uptake. Given the union’s rejection of the offer, as of last week, the council is now entering a period of consultation to resolve the dispute while protecting its equal pay position. I urge the union to work with the council on a sustainable way forward that is fair to workers in the council and to the residents of Birmingham. Finally, hon. Members may be aware that earlier today Max Caller announced that he is retiring as lead commissioner in Birmingham, and I wish him well for the future. Tony McArdle OBE has today been appointed by the Secretary of State as the new lead commissioner, and he will take up his position tomorrow. Tony brings a huge wealth of expertise, and I am confident that he will continue to deliver on the recovery plan to secure improvements for Birmingham’s residents.

The bin strikes in Birmingham have now dragged on for over four months, and Birmingham’s 1.1 million residents are paying the price. The Government have repeatedly scapegoated bin workers, yet they refuse to address the root cause and real reason why residents have seen their public services crumble and their council tax bills rise by 21%. At the heart of this crisis lies 13 years of mismanagement and incompetence under a Labour-run council. The Minister wants to blame the equal pay settlement for cuts, but conveniently forgets that the council has had this settlement looming for over a decade. Over 13 years, there has been endless council waste: an athlete’s village that housed not a single athlete sold off at a loss of £320 million, £216 million spent on an IT system that failed, and £53 million spent on consultants. Now the Government stand idly by while their own council cuts up to £8,000 from bin workers. This Government should be defending frontline workers, not their own incompetent council. The biggest betrayal is the Government’s deliberate downplaying of their involvement. For months, Ministers claimed that this was a local issue, yet it is now clear that Government-appointed commissioners must approve any deal. Just last week, the commissioners rejected a deal that could have ended the strike, despite the council’s managing director being inclined to accept it. The misery in Birmingham has been prolonged not by the workers, but by the commissioners and therefore the Government. This Government have the power to end the strike, and yet they have actively dragged their heels in reaching a deal. That raises serious questions about the Government’s commitment to workers’ rights. The council’s action amounts to fire and rehire. With the Government’s role in these negotiations, we must ask: are they complicit in aiding and abetting the very practices they are legislating to ban? Finally, will the Minister confirm that the Government have the power to remove the commissioners who are blocking a deal? Will he personally commit to opposing the fire and rehire practices that the council is using?

I hear the hon. Member’s charac-terisation of the issue, but it bears no relationship at all to the reality of the situation. The council is an independent employer. It is not for the Government to go council by council negotiating trade union disputes or terms and condition changes. It is for the councils themselves as the employers to negotiate with their workforces, and that is exactly the same in Birmingham as for other councils, as he knows. The commissioners are of course appointed by Government and have to act with professional expertise in giving advice to the local authority on whether its plans are affordable and lawful, but the negotiations are taking place between the council itself, and Unite the trade union and the council’s workforce. On this idea that we are scapegoating the workers in this dispute, no party has done more for workers’ rights than Labour. No Government have done more on workers’ rights in a generation than this Government, headed by the Deputy Prime Minister. When I hear Members of this House talking in a way that degrades that, that is a complete and absolute failure to accept not just the legacy we inherited as a Government—that includes, by the way, Birmingham city council and its local taxpayers—but our determination to put that right. Finally, of course Birmingham could and should have made some big financial decisions much earlier. That is a matter of fact, and that is why commissioners are in there today. But the local government finance settlement had an increase in core spending power of 9.8%—that is, £131 million of additional money into Birmingham. That included the largest settlement through the recovery grant of any council in the country.

I call the shadow Minister.

As the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) alluded to, the House knows that the origins of the dispute in Birmingham are in the 2017 settlement of the equal pay arrangements, which created a £760 million liability for that local authority under the Labour party, and which have been undermined at every turn by the relationship between Labour’s administration in Birmingham and the unions. It is clear that that local authority and its leadership have been dodging scrutiny and accountability at every turn. They refused even to debate the local authority Conservative group’s proposals for a plan to end the strikes and clean up the city. I have a series of questions for the Minister. What guidance will he give his seven-strong commissioner team to bring about an end to the strikes? What public health assessment are the Government carrying out of the impact of more than 21,000 tonnes of uncollected rubbish and a huge increase in the rat population in Birmingham? Will he consider withdrawing the facility time for Unite the union, which is currently refusing to go about the process of bringing an end to the strikes? Will he tell his commissioners—including Tony McArdle, whose appointment has been announced today—that Birmingham’s besieged households must not be held to ransom by the unions for a day longer? Will he tell the House who he thinks has failed the households of Birmingham more? Is it the Labour council, in leaving rats on the streets and 21,000 tonnes of uncollected rubbish in a heatwave, or this Government, who have failed to intervene to bring an end to this blight on residents’ lives?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions, which I will try to answer in turn. Let me say, though, that we will take no lectures at all from the party that was in government for 14 years and saw the downgrading of local authorities across the country, including in Birmingham. Although these are our commissioners, as the hon. Gentleman says—that is correct: they are Government appointed—let us not forget which Government appointed them. They were appointed on the watch of the previous Government. Today we are just announcing a change in the lead commissioner. We need to be careful not to politicise those people, who believe in public service and are helping out the local authority and supporting the Government in trying to turn that council around. Let us leave the politicisation of the commissioners to one side and deal with the facts. Last time I was in the Chamber, the Conservatives were talking down the role of bin workers, as if somehow that work was degrading. At that time, I think they were suggesting that the armed forces might be brought in to collect waste and that that would somehow degrade their role. That was never going to be the case, but it was a glimpse into how the Conservatives view the workers who are affected. One thing that is absolutely certain is that the Labour party believes in the power of frontline workers and in the importance of these frontline roles. We absolutely value the role of refuse collectors, and we see the implications of waste not being collected. But we have got to be clear, too, that whatever settlement is on the table has to be lawful and affordable, and it cannot cross the red line of undermining the equal pay negotiations that are taking place. I hope that we can agree at least on that basis.

I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.

I thank the Minister for outlining the Government’s work to maintain vital collection services for residents, who want to see their city cleaned up rather than another summer of this, given the recent heatwave. Strike action has now passed the six-month mark. As the Minister just outlined, it is important that we consider the hardship felt by many of the striking workers. Many of them do not want to politicise this; they just want to do the right thing by their families. One recently told the BBC: “Morale’s quite low… Everyone’s trying to stay strong and together, but it is very difficult. The union has tried to help us out with strike pay, but for a lot of people it doesn’t cover their…bills. It puts a massive strain on our family. Kids, money—money’s tight, credit cards are maxed out”. Nobody should be put in that position. I hear the Minister’s calls for the commissioners, Birmingham and the unions to resolve this issue, but what more can he and the Government do to bring everyone around the table so that we can finally bring an end to the dispute?

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for her comments—we agree on much. She speaks to why a resolution on this issue is so important. At the heart of this, there are working people with rent and mortgages to pay, who want a resolution. To be clear, the council has been in negotiations over many months and has made a fair and reasonable offer to Unite, which, unfortunately, the union rejected. The council has also worked hard to offer options to affected workers, including their transfer to other roles in the council at the same grade, and, in some cases, has agreed to upskill in-scope workers. A generous redundancy package is available for those who wish to leave the service; we have seen an uptake in that. In the end, none of us wants this to roll on indefinitely; we want to see a resolution for the affected workers and for the taxpayers of Birmingham, who quite rightly expect their local public services to be delivered to a good standard.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Birmingham wants its refuse and recycling service back as quickly as possible to end the risks to public health and the environment, especially in the most densely populated parts of the city. The Liberal Democrats pay tribute to the volunteers and emergency services, who were out there cleaning up the city by dealing with refuse, waste pile-ups and fly-tipping while the council and unions could not agree and continued clashing hammer and tongs. For years under the previous Conservative Government, councils were expected to do more and more with less and less, and that has borne fruit in Birmingham and many other places. The Government must now grasp the nettle and tackle that funding crisis, particularly in social care and local government generally, so that what is happening in Birmingham does not spread across the country. Given that one-off clean-ups have cost the council £3.9 million already, is it not time for the Government to fund a complete clean-up of the remaining refuse so that residents do not have to foot the bill and spend the rest of the summer living alongside disgusting rubbish. Will any clean-up ensure that waste is properly dealt with and recycled where possible, given that the city is already ranked third from bottom in waste recycling?

The hon. Gentleman makes fair observations about the funding crisis in local government, but it would be remiss of me not to take him back to the coalition years, which started austerity in local government. The Liberal Democrats were not just casual observers of the demise of local government but active participants in it. In those very first years, when the cuts really bit for local authorities, they aided and abetted. Our job, after 14 years of the impacts of those decisions, is to find a way through, and we are getting on with that. We are rebuilding the foundations of local government. We have announced a consultation on the fair funding review, which will see a redistribution of funding across the country towards the areas of high deprivation that need it most. We are taking into account all the different service pressures. We are grasping the nettle on the structural changes needed in devolution and reorganisation to ensure that the sector is fit, legal and decent at the end of the process, and we are repairing the broken audit market alongside that. We are getting on with repairing the foundations of local government, but we need to be clear that this is a localised dispute, and of course we do not want to see it impact on local people. I say to the House—because I have heard this a number of times and should have called out the first example—that there are not tens of thousands of tonnes of waste accumulating on the streets of Birmingham. That was the case, and it was dealt with efficiently. In most cases, collections are taking place for most households at most times, and there is not the accumulation of the type we saw earlier. Clearly, the situation is fragile and we do not want it to return to how it was, which is why we remain in regular contact with the council.

I welcome the appointment of the new lead commissioner. As the Minister knows, we have had many discussions about the intervention, including at times from a place of concern. I look forward to working constructively with Tony McArdle on behalf of the citizens of Birmingham. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in respect of the GMB and Unison unions, which are the claimant unions in the equal pay case in Birmingham. I feel compelled to round out the partial account that we have heard today in the Chamber. Will the Minister confirm that by far the largest share of Birmingham’s equal pay liability of more than £1 billion was incurred when the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats ran the city, and that over the past decade to 2024, Birmingham suffered the sharpest reduction in spending power of any unitary authority in the country, with devastating consequences for every constituency in Birmingham?

That is a fair point. I forgot that the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) had a brief stint as a Liberal Democrat councillor. Actually, the people of Birmingham want us to put the party politics to one side. I think what matters to local people is, first, that they are treated fairly when it comes to local council tax levels and, secondly, that they get a good level of public service for the tax that they pay. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) rightly says, there has to be accountability. It is a matter of fact that some of these big decisions should have been taken much earlier, and that goes back to the Conservative and Liberal Democrat-run council. His fundamental point about the importance of equal pay and the liabilities, which are big numbers because of the size of the council and the historic issues there, cannot be undermined. The worst outcome of this dispute would be that a decision is made for the short term that does not address the medium and long term, completely unravels the equal pay negotiations and, by doing that, undermines the women workers in scope.

I commend my parliamentary neighbour, the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan), for bringing this urgent question to the House before it rises. I also pay tribute to Max Caller, whose retirement has been announced in the last few hours; he has dispatched his Herculean task with considerable distinction. The Minister will be aware that Labour is now imposing the contract, which the Conservative Opposition leader, Councillor Bobby Alden, urged the Labour leadership to do a year ago. Does he understand that my constituents in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield, who come under Birmingham for local government purposes, have had their patience tried beyond endurance by this bankrupt Labour council? Is he aware that recent polling suggests that only 5% of Birmingham residents are likely to vote Labour next May? My constituents—and, I have no doubt, those of the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr—are counting the days until next May comes and we can get rid of this dreadful council.

I thank the right hon. Member for taking my advice and not making this party political—a bit more refining and we will get there in the end. Surely the right hon. Member would expect that the local authority would enter a trade union negotiation in good faith and would go as far as it can lawfully go in making a settlement offer that respects the workers who are losing pay as a result of equal pay, because that is surely the right thing to do. I hope he would not expect the council to disregard that entirely. The council rightly cares about its workforce, not least because many of them will be Birmingham city residents themselves, and it wants to make sure that it supports that process. The council, like us, was not happy that the offer was rejected by the union, but that is not to say that we cannot use this time for the conversation to continue, so that we can reach a resolution that puts the people of Birmingham first.

Could the Minister explain this? I understand the issues of equal pay, and I think equal pay is essential, important and legally necessary, but what we have here is a reduction in pay for a significant group of workers. How can they possibly be held responsible for the financial problems that Birmingham city council has? Is their case not entirely justified—that they are protecting their own wages and conditions, as any good trade union would do in any negotiations? Cannot he simply accept and understand that, and that be the basis on which a settlement is agreed, so that they can return to work?

The way the right hon. Member starts is where I would hope most local authorities do when looking at equal pay, but the reality is that there will always be winners and losers in equal pay where women have been underpaid for a long time. Councils have options here: they can either compensate and pay upwards for all the female workers in post to the comparable male worker, which for most councils in most circumstances will not be affordable, because there are huge sums attached to that; or, to make a package affordable, they have to equalise it out in consultation with the trade unions. That is exactly what has happened in Birmingham. The issue in Birmingham is very particular to the waste service, where a previous agreement was reached that honestly does not hold when assessed against equal pay in terms of the tasks that are carried out by those workers. In the end, it does not pass the equal pay test, but that is not to say that we are not urging the council and Unite the trade union to continue negotiations to resolve this. We absolutely want the right outcome for the workers and the residents of Birmingham.

I, too, thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) for tabling this urgent question. I also thank the Minister for his answers, and I sympathise with his position, but replacing this workforce, policing the dispute and paying the legal fees has cost the already overstretched council £4 million. All the while, the good people of Birmingham—the very people who voted in a Labour council and many Labour Members of Parliament—are living in foul misery. Does the Minister agree that it would save millions of pounds, improve our relationship with the dedicated bin workers and restore a basic necessity to the people of Birmingham if he intervened to get us out of this stink?

Our starting point, of course, is that we want all parties to negotiate in good faith, and we want the local authority to do its best to table a deal that goes as far as it can go, but the red line has to be that it cannot compromise and completely unravel the equal pay negotiations that have taken place, to which all the trade unions—not just Unite—have been a party. Therein lies the issue. The hon. Member could rightly say—I think this is what he indicates—“Surely you just pay what it takes to resolve the issue with the striking bin workers,” but for the equal pay package to hold, a comparable payment would need to be made to all the female workers in scope, so the numbers he talks about are fantasyland. They are not single-digit millions; they are tens or hundreds of millions of pounds, which goes above both legality and affordability for the local authority. We have urged the council to negotiate in good faith with the trade union and to go as far as it can go, provided that it is lawful, affordable and does not undermine the equal pay liability so far.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) on tabling this urgent question and thank the Minister for his response. The Birmingham bin strikes are not just about waste. They are about what happens when the state retreats from local services without proper reform. The UK must confront the legacy of austerity, rethink how local government is funded and run and treat frontline workers with the respect and fairness they deserve. Failure to do so risks further breakdowns in public services and public trust not just in Birmingham but all over our country. Will the Minister explain what steps the Government are taking to analyse how we got into this mess in the first place and to ensure that no other council faces the same situation anywhere in our country?

We have to accept that there are some issues here that are unique to Birmingham. For instance, many councils across England dealt with equal pay over a decade ago, and Birmingham did not, which is why the liabilities have escalated in the way they have. On the hon. Member’s fundamental point about fair funding and ensuring that local public services can be rebuilt, we can agree. We believe that most people’s local neighbourhood services have been impacted so heavily by not only austerity but the growth in demand in adult’s, children’s and temporary accommodation that we have to completely rethink both how we fund local government and how we reinvest back into prevention and early intervention to prevent that crisis management model.

I thank the Minister for his answers and wish him well in his endeavours to enable a solution to be found. The Government have stated that they are committed to a “sustainable resolution” to the severe backlog of uncollected waste and the ongoing pay dispute. The workers state that they face cuts of some £8,000 per year, which would be a devastating loss for those with families and responsibilities. Will the Minister acknowledge that reducing current wages is not the way forward and that the Government must intervene now, to make workers feel worthwhile and to sustain trust between the council and the workers?

Whoever is negotiating in this environment will have the same guardrails as the local authority does. The local authority has to be mindful of the equal pay package that it has agreed with all the trade unions, and it cannot do anything in this very narrow dispute—however impactful it is on the workers and local residents—that means completely unravelling the equal pay package. I share the hon. Member’s concern about the impact, but it is important that the local authority and Unite the trade union continue those talks and try to find a resolution. With that being the final question, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I wish you and other Members of the House a peaceful recess?

Thank you.