Trade Bill (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Alan Brown and Hannah Bardell

Committee Debate: 8th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 1st February 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I will try to assist the Committee with concluding proceedings before 2 pm.

The new clause is all about the Bill’s impact on Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. The history so far is that, instead of taking back control, the Brexit process appears to be an interdepartmental bun fight for resources, both cash and human. Right now, there is a Brexit gravy train for consultants, and experts are suddenly back in demand. That was confirmed by the Chancellor, when in the autumn Budget he allocated a further £3 billion over the next two years to Brexit preparations.

Brexit will cause an unprecedented rise in workload for HMRC, whatever customs and tariff arrangements are made. In addition, goods traded with the EU will need to be accounted for as international exports. That is all happening at a time when, as all Members know, the Tory Government are slashing staff and closing HMRC offices across the nations of the UK.

At the same time, HMRC is launching a new customs declaration service, starting in August 2018, with the intention that it will be implemented in full by January 2019. That will replace the customs handling of import and export freight system, which is nearly 25 years old and cannot be easily adapted to new requirements. I think everyone on the Committee will be cynical about that—who has ever heard of a massive IT project that goes live on time and is easily adaptable to suit future processes?

There are serious concerns about whether the system can be put in place properly just a few months before Brexit, given that customs declarations are expected to more than triple once the UK leaves the EU. The National Audit Office has said that the number of customs declarations could increase from 55 million to 255 million if tax and duties must be collected on trade between the UK and EU.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that what we have seen across the UK, including from the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee, is huge criticism of the UK Government’s change programme? In my constituency, they want to centralise the Livingston HMRC office to Edinburgh. There will be a devastating impact on communities and the continuity of services will be impacted just a moment before these other plans take place. The Government should rethink the process wholesale.

[Alan Brown]

It will come as no surprise that I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The closing of HMRC offices is yet another example of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing and of a complete lack of strategic thinking.

Jon Thompson, the chief executive of HMRC, has warned that border and tax checks post-Brexit could require an additional 5,000 staff, with new customs checks costing the taxpayer up to £800 million. Given the uncertainty about future customs arrangements, the fact that HMRC is already undertaking a system overhaul, that the number of declarations could increase fourfold and that transitional arrangements are still unknown, it makes complete sense to assess the impact on HMRC, which is responsible for the taxing and checking of trade that will arise from the Bill.

The new clause would allow for greater parliamentary scrutiny and force an internal departmental impact assessment. This week alone has shown that it takes much effort to force the Government’s hand on impact assessments and for them to be up front about what the impact of Brexit will be. That is why I move the new clause.

Mining: Health and Safety

Debate between Alan Brown and Hannah Bardell

Tuesday 28th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Hannah Bardell]

I join my hon. Friend in her tributes. She is a doughty champion for her constituents, and I share in all that she says.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. The keynote in her speech is that we must never forget the sacrifices that people made. It is important that children and others living in these communities in later years understand what happened before them. This year is the 60th anniversary of the Kames colliery disaster in my constituency, in which 17 men lost their lives in an underground explosion. I pay tribute to those guys and their families. It is very important that communities never forget.

[Hannah Bardell]

I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to those lost in his constituency.

I welcome such fitting tributes to men and to the families they leave behind, as they will remain a sober reminder to us all for generations to come of the sacrifices that those men made on that day in January 70 years ago. The five shale bings—or the five sisters, as they are famously known locally my constituency—and the bings of Broxburn were recently serialised by BBC Scotland, and are the indelible marks on the West Lothian landscape that remind us of our industrial past. In constituencies across the UK there are reminders in museums and galleries, such as Mill Farm in West Lothian and the Lady Victoria colliery in Newtongrange, which I visited as a youngster when my grandfather was terminally ill with a tumour. I remember going home to ask my mum whether she thought he would be well enough to visit. He was not, but the stories that I brought home meant a great deal to him.

There have been thousands of deaths in mines over the centuries, but fortunately safety has improved. It has been 50 years since the last UK mining accident happened at the Cambrian colliery in south Wales on 17 May 1965, where 31 tragically lost their lives. However, as recently as May 2014, the worst mining accident in the 21st century killed 301 people in Soma, Turkey. I am sure many hon. Members remember the 29 men killed underground four years previously at the Pike River mine disaster in New Zealand. In November 2010, just seven months earlier than that, 29 of 31 miners on site at the Upper Big Branch mine in West Virginia, USA, were killed in an explosion. On 30 January 2000, the Baia Mare cyanide spill took place in Romania: 100,000 tonnes of cyanide-contaminated water broke into the River Somes, the River Tisza and the River Danube. Although no human fatalities were reported, the leak killed up to 80% of aquatic life in some of the affected rivers, which meant that the accident was hailed as the worst environmental disaster in Europe since Chernobyl.

Although our UK mining industry has had health and safety problems, we have learned a huge amount from accidents such as the one in Burngrange in my constituency. From the pit closures and attacks on the trade unions in the Thatcher era, and the year-long miners strike—it was strikes in Lanarkshire that eventually drove my grandmother’s family to Glasgow so that her parents could seek other work—we remember the miners today and always. As a direct result of that strike, mining is no longer as much a part of the industrial landscape, but health and safety is crucial for those left working in the industry, wherever they are in the world. We have come a long way in health and safety improvements, but much more needs to be done, not just in mining but in other dangerous industries such as the oil and gas industry.

Many went from our pits into other industrial work such as oil and gas. It is important to remember that men and women in those industries work in some of the most challenging environments in the world. Health and safety is paramount. In fact, one such worker who followed that path was Mike McTighe, the father of my office manager, Stephanie. He worked in the Bilston Glen pit in Edinburgh for many years and was the last of a famous breed of coalminers in Scotland who moved on to work in oil and gas. He retired only a few months ago. He told me recently how he was once caught in a roof fall in a pit. He said that, as terrifying as that was, going down the leg of an oil platform, when he was often alone, responsible for his own air supply and surrounded by many toxic gases, was possibly the scariest and most hostile environment he had ever been in.

I had my own experience of the importance of health and safety when I became involved in the emergency response to a helicopter going down off the coast of Shetland in 2013. The company I worked for in the oil and gas industry lost a colleague. I spent a lot of time with his family, and working with many people in other companies to review health and safety practices and emergency response, to do our best to ensure that such an accident could never happen again. The work and continued improvement of our Health and Safety Executive is vital. Piper Alpha stands as the worst accident in the North sea and in the oil and gas industry. Many lessons were learned, including by the HSE, which has continued its work.

We owe a huge debt of gratitude to the men and women, and indeed children, who have worked in the pits, in some of the most challenging environments on earth. Their work and legacy leave a mark on our landscape, in our lives and in our history. We must remember them.

What will the Minister and the Government do to ensure that UK communities blighted by the loss of those industries get greater investment and support to embrace an environmentally friendly and low-carbon future? It is a fact that, despite goals to become a low-carbon economy, our dependence on imported fuels is now at a level not seen since the 1970s. The UK is the only one of Europe’s five biggest energy users to be increasing its reliance on imported energy. Britain now imports four times as much coal as it produces. Coal and other solid fuels made up 10% of the UK’s energy imports in 2015, from countries such as Colombia, Australia and the USA, with Russia being our biggest import partner. We have to consider some of the health and safety practices in those countries and raise concerns about them. Some of those countries are subject to international sanctions. Ukraine, for example, provides close to half the coal we import, and Colombia has an ugly track record on human rights.

The company responsible for the bulk of our Russian imported coal is the Siberian Coal Energy Company, which exports 31 million tonnes of coal a year, according to its website, and nearly a quarter of that comes to the UK—its biggest single market, well ahead of China. Russia’s safety record is not without blemish, and several major mining accidents have happened there. Notably, the Ulyanovskaya—I hope Members will excuse my pronunciation—mine disaster of 2007 killed 106 miners. Just last year, a methane leak triggered two explosions in a mine near Vorkuta, where 26 people ultimately lost their lives. Over 60% of Russian coal is extracted in the Kuzbass region of Siberia, and the human rights of mine workers and villagers are violated daily, according to reports.

In Colombia, the health and safety track record is appalling. An explosion at the La Preciosa mine in Sardinata in January 2011 killed 21 people; another explosion at the same mine in February 2007 killed more than 30 workers. During the decades-long civil war, the Colombian coal industry has grown to the point where it now ranks as the fourth-largest exporter of power station coal in the world, behind Indonesia, Australia and Russia. According to the London Mining Network, the growth of the Colombian coal industry has come at a terrible cost, including the dispossession of communities and widespread human rights abuses against members of the mining workforce and residents. Coal has polluted not only the air and the water but the country’s politics, with credible reports of at least one coal company providing support for militias involved in human rights abuses.

We should not condone the dereliction of duty to the human rights of workers and families living in mining communities. While we still import coal, we should do it from responsible sources, and I ask the Minister to review our coal imports and the human rights and health and safety records of the countries those imports come from.

In addition, we should do much more to develop and support our renewables sector to meet our power needs. The Banks Group in my constituency is a surface mining, renewable energy and property firm. It is truly diverse, and it has a clear vision on the future of renewables. It does pioneering work on reclaiming and redeveloping land that has been used for mining, and it was responsible for the Northumberlandia restoration, which is also known as “The Lady of the North”. In partnership with North Lanarkshire Council, the innovative Connect2Renewables project will ensure a minimum of £69 million of local economic benefit for the area, while a £1.74 million jobs and training fund will support 400 to 450 local unemployed people into work, further education or workplace training. This sort of ambitious, forward-thinking and environmentally friendly initiative is essential as we work towards our low-carbon goals.

My final request of the Minister—I know I am asking a lot of her—is that she set up specific funds for communities in former coal and shale mining areas to help them adapt and provide for the future. A specific fund could help with the kind of work that has been done in my constituency to engage with local schools. Economically, a fund could and should support areas that have never recovered from having had their heavy industries taken away or damaged irreparably, and that got little or no support at the time from the then Conservative Government.

These communities have sacrificed more than they should have, and they have provided for the whole country. We owe them our gratitude and support, and I call on the Government to do all they can to make sure that those former mining communities thrive and develop new industries where the old ones once stood so valiantly.

Enterprise Bill [Lords]

Debate between Alan Brown and Hannah Bardell

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Hannah Bardell]

I am pleased that we have the opportunity to debate the extension of Sunday trading hours. Since the original proposals were withdrawn by the Government, my colleagues and I have been engaging widely with people and organisations on both sides of the debate. Contrary to media speculation and the misinformation peddled by Government Front Benchers, the SNP has, as we said we would, reached our conclusions on the basis of the evidence that has been presented to us.

There are a variety of views across this House and across the country. I intend to outline my concerns about the effect of the UK Government’s proposals on workers’ rights and benefits in Scotland and the UK. However, I should say at the outset that my SNP colleagues and I have no objection to the principle of extending trading hours on Sundays. After all, in Scotland, as has been said many times, we already enjoy unrestricted trading hours on Sundays. It is important to note that in the past, restraints on Sunday opening in Scotland have existed, but they have largely been social rather than legal. There are, of course, areas of Scotland where there is greater religious observance and Sunday opening hours are more restricted but, in general, the practice of longer opening hours on Sundays, particularly in retail, is now well established throughout Scotland, and some evidence suggests that that has been the case since the late 1980s.

The UK Government’s proposals represent the uniform deregulation of trading hours restrictions across these islands. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but without adequate legal protections, which we and others have called for, the employment protections of workers and their remuneration would be threatened.

The Government’s impact assessment, which was published only this morning, identifies more than 450,000 retail workers across the UK who receive premium pay, but in the 44-page assessment, the Government dedicate just one paragraph to that and dismiss out of hand the concerns of workers and of USDAW. Even now, faced with defeat, the UK Government refuse to offer assurances about premium pay. They engage in ping-pong politics, looking for ways to get the numbers through the Lobby.

[Alan Brown]

My hon. Friend rightly underlines the point that we have always made about the long-term erosion of premium pay. A sham of a pilot has been offered, but does my hon. Friend agree that that cannot address the long-term erosion of premium pay? Nobody participating in a pilot is going to take away premium pay—they will have to wait until the pilot is finished.

[Hannah Bardell]

I entirely agree.

My SNP colleagues and I made it clear in November last year that we would oppose the UK Government’s proposals, and we oppose them now. We challenged the UK Government to think again about how they could provide the necessary guarantees and safeguards to shop workers in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. I was pleased that the Government tabled a new schedule in Committee—it now forms part of the Bill, although it is threatened with removal—that sought to amend the Employment Rights Act 1996 to give more explicit protection to shop workers opting out of Sunday work, including protections against such workers being discriminated against. Our Labour colleagues have referred to the legal opinion that they obtained.

SNP Members welcome the extra protections for workers. They show that the UK Government can, when they want to, listen and, on occasion, act to do the right thing. The SNP commissioned its own legal opinion from a leading Scottish silk to examine the protections in detail. We are satisfied that they represent a significant increase in employment protection across the UK, and those protections would not have materialised without the SNP’s opposition.

Enterprise Bill [ Lords ] (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Alan Brown and Hannah Bardell

Thursday 25th February 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Hannah Bardell]

Further to that point of order, Sir David, I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Cardiff West and thank all the Clerks and staff and yourself and Ms Buck. This is the second Bill Committee that I have been part of, but it is the first for my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, and I know I speak on his behalf when I say that it has been a largely enjoyable experience.

[Alan Brown]

I did not say that.

[Hannah Bardell]

Perhaps I am misspeaking.

We are disappointed that more amendments were not accepted, but it has certainly been interesting and engaging and, as the hon. Member for Cardiff West says, I am sure that there will be extensive debate when the Bill returns to the Floor of the House. I thank you again, Sir David, on behalf of myself and my hon. Friend.

Enterprise Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Debate between Alan Brown and Hannah Bardell

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck. I want to focus on the issue of retentions, which relates to amendment 39 and new clause 12. I spoke about retention on Second Reading, and one of the reasons I wanted to serve on the Bill Committee was to push for this.

We have already had two votes—very much partisan votes—on amendments that I had imagined were uncontroversial. This is a major issue for the industry, so I was hoping for some cross-party consensus on these amendments. I note the intervention from the hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire, which seemed to be an intervention against new clause 12 and amendment 39. If the setting up of the new small business commissioner was a way of addressing this long-standing issue, I do not think the business experts would be lobbying so hard for these amendments to resolve it. Also, if this was a method of dealing with it, it seems strange that the Government should set up a review specifically to looks retentions. That seems counterintuitive to me.

Just to recap the main issues, retentions are basically to do with a cash-flow problem. Retentions usually equate to about 5% of the cost of a job, which is held until the end of the maintenance period, which is usually a year after completion and commission of the main job. That 5% quite often equates to the profit margin, especially for small companies, so if major companies are not releasing these retentions, then companies do not have access to their profits. That is a major cash-flow issue, and it does not take a genius to see that if there is no profit, there is no company in the long run.

We heard earlier that up to £3 billion can be held at any one time in retentions. Last year, £40 million was lost due to insolvencies—that is, one company going bust that was holding retentions that were due to other companies. Those companies lose that money and, of course, end up paying off workers.

The cash-flow issue also means that companies cannot invest in training and apprenticeships. I tried to draw a parallel on Second Reading, in that one good aspect of the Bill is the attempt to create new apprenticeships in England and Wales, yet retention actually prevents the creation of apprenticeships in the engineering industry. These are specialist apprenticeships, which can lead to rewarding and well paid jobs. We should be doing everything we can to sustain that industry, to sustain those jobs and that training.

The suggested model is for a retention deposit scheme, modelled on a tenancy deposit scheme. This accords with housing legislation in this country and legislation in other countries that, as we have heard, have already looked at resolving the matter of retentions. Retentions in trust still provide a waiver over subcontractors who pay cash retentions. It is still a method of getting subcontractors back on site if there are defects to be fixed, or it provides money that can be accessed to pay for the defects. More importantly, it means that subcontractors can get the money that is legitimately due to them.

I urge Members to think carefully about amendment 39, which would help to address the question of cash retentions, and new clause 12, which would resolve the matter once and for all.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Ms Buck.

I want to speak briefly to amendment 38 and new clause 16. Small and medium-sized enterprises have a vital role in driving the UK’s economic recovery, and it is a vital task of Government to ensure that finance is available to them to encourage investment and growth.

We welcome the findings of the British Business Bank’s small business finance markets report, which was published this month. It paints an encouraging picture of lending to small businesses in the past year, with an increase in equity finance for smaller businesses—there was growth of 43% in the year to October 2015. Bank lending, which continues to be the main form of finance for smaller businesses, continues to improve too, but obviously there are still significant challenges there.

However, as was mentioned earlier, 56% of smaller businesses are looking to grow their turnover this year. It is essential that suitable finance should be available to support those growth ambitions and that the Government should not rest on their achievements of the past year. By accepting the amendment, which we support, the UK Government would give the small business commissioner the power to champion lending for small businesses and to make constructive recommendations to the Government on how to encourage lending to SMEs.

As for new clause 16, we recognise that new rules were introduced for venture capital trusts, enterprise investment schemes and seed investment schemes by the Chancellor, and that the scheme would be a mechanism for incentivising investment in small enterprises. Again, we support the new clause, and encourage the Government—I hope we can see some cross-party consensus—to bring forward details and guidance about the availability of the scheme. What we are talking about is somewhat of a marketing exercise, but it is a question of getting the information out. All too often—certainly when I worked in the private sector, in the oil industry—the schemes that were available were various. Companies were not aware of what was available. It is important that we market schemes and put them out there, so that as many companies as possible take up opportunities.