Fairness at Work and Power in Communities
Alex Norris Excerpts(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
We meet today with our constituents struggling more than they have in my entire lifetime, and that comes off the back of a very difficult decade or more for people in my community, with anaemic growth in the economy, virtually no wage growth, stagnant pay and of course ever-increasing bills. Millions of people across the country have been just about managing for a decade, whether by not going on holiday, not buying things, having hand-me-down clothes or parents missing out so their kids can eat. They have been just about keeping their heads above water for a long period of time, but in the last six months that has changed for that entire category of people with startling speed. Millions in this country and many in my community have seen their viability blown away by the increase in their bills, whether through inflation, in energy bills or at the petrol pump. I do not like the “cost of living crisis” as a frame because it does not nearly state how serious it is. It is a poverty crisis.
When the Government set out their agenda, there should have been a helping hand for working people to get them through their hour of need, but, yet again, true to form, they have been unable to meet the moment. They could have introduced a windfall tax on oil and gas companies to take hundreds of pounds off the energy bills of millions, but they chose not to. They could have taxed online retailers fairly and given our struggling small and medium-sized entities discounts on their business rates, but they chose not to. They could have finally done the right thing and cancelled the national insurance rise, but again they chose not to. What we have instead is more of the same, with high taxes, high inflation, low growth and low pay.
In my community, low pay is a disease. Last Friday, I attended an event at the Jubilee LEAD Academy in Bilborough in my constituency. Its inspiring young students asked me to come to hear about their campaign to secure the real living wage—the proper one—for care workers. Many of them had parents who worked in care and saw the toll that hard work coupled with poor pay took on their lives. Many had relatives who were recipients of care and they saw how hard life was for those who ensured that their loved ones were looked after. They wanted to see those care workers looked after as well. They are fighting for better pay and the Government should listen to them. Those are six, seven and eight-year olds in a primary school who are well ahead of the adults chosen to lead the country. Instead, we get a promise of jam tomorrow, but there is no value in jam tomorrow when there is not bread today.
Just as pay is a core part of decent work, so is security. It is now five and a half years since the Taylor report and two and a half years since the 2019 Conservative manifesto promised employment legislation. We have heard Government Ministers promise an employment Bill 20 times. In opening the debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), said that the Government’s commitment was “undiminished”. I say gently—he is a good man and I like him a lot—that they cannot promise an employment Bill 20 times, fail to deliver it in the Queen’s Speech and say that their commitment is undiminished. That is simply beyond imagination. I am old enough to remember the commitment to the UK being the best place in the world to work—where is that in the Queen’s Speech?
Instead, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) raised so passionately, we are stuck with fire and rehire: a Victorian practice that is alive and kicking. In two years, we have seen it used on a large scale by British Airways, British Gas and P&O, and three times the Government have missed the opportunity to do something about it.
We should be cheered by the news this morning that Deliveroo and the GMB have reached a recognition agreement. That shows once again that the timeless and long-standing values of trade unionism are as relevant as ever in the modern economy. That will be good for Deliveroo’s staff and for its business. It is a partnership; one does not come at the expense of others. However, the Government should be introducing employment legislation rather than hoping that the answer for people in low-paid work is to work longer and harder, taking more jobs, operating in the wild west of zero-hours contracts and bogus self-employment—colleagues raised that—and not really knowing what they will earn from one week to the next. According to the TUC, the failure to act in this area is costing the Treasury £10 billion a year. What could we do with that £10 billion from people in regular employment paying tax and not reliant on social security? We could meet 40% of the social care budget from that alone.
If we want to talk about fairness at work, we should be chasing a more resilient economy and one that is less volatile to the markets. One of my passions—colleagues can look at my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—is building a co-operative economy with a new model of ownership. We know that co-operatives are more resilient. We got little hope or optimism from the Queen’s Speech, but we can look outwards to find that in the co-operative economy, because those businesses are at the coalface of the current crisis.
Co-operative and mutual enterprises are putting people before profit and supporting the vulnerable while the Government do not do their bit. They are building a fairer and more inclusive economy, but they need help. They could do so much more. We ought to have a Minister in Government who leads for co-ops. We should strengthen the credit union movement and support our building societies in providing affordable and accessible banking in all communities. We could have had a Marcora law, as they do in Italy, so that when a business is on the verge of collapse, workers have the right to buy it out. Instead of money being spent on employment benefits, resilient businesses that pay well could be putting that financial firepower back into communities, retaining good jobs, and keeping the economy going and thriving. Instead of money going to nondescript, distant and disinterested shareholders, we would be giving millions of working people a say in their own life and the services they use. That is a very exciting future, and the co-operative economy could do so much more in that area.
Instead, however, we see more of what has given us this decade of lost national growth. I am less excited about GDP than I am about what is in the pockets of my constituents. Their pay packets are, in real terms, less and less every month. That issue has grown exponentially in recent months. We should have had action to help them. Instead, we have vague promises of help in the future. That will not do. It is not good enough, and that is why I think there has been such anger about that, as there is on the Opposition Benches. We have to do better by our constituents.
Oral Answers to Questions
Alex Norris Excerpts(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Kwasi Kwarteng)
We know that certain areas of the economy have faced enormous challenges this year, and that is why the Government have provided an unprecedented range of support packages to help businesses precisely to continue trading.
Kwasi Kwarteng
As the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), has suggested, there is a considerable measure of support for pubs that are suffering at the moment. And as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care said, there is a clear medical, epidemiological reason for pursuing the policies that we have done.
Alex Norris
In a letter to the Prime Minister, the BBPA said that the so-called support for pubs and brewers in the winter plan was met with “utter dismay and incredulity” among publicans. Many hostelry businesses crucial to life in Nottingham and across the country are not going to survive the winter with what is currently on offer. When is the Minister going to come forward with proper support?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I do not recognise what the hon. Gentleman is saying. We are in constant dialogue with the pub industry and many people—publicans—certainly in my constituency, who have spoken to me are grateful for the measure of support. We are in constant dialogue, but they are grateful for the measure of support that has been supplied.
Climate Change, the Environment and Global Development
Alex Norris Excerpts(4 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to close this debate on behalf of the Opposition. We have heard excellent contributions from across the House. It has been heartening to hear the common theme that tackling the climate emergency is of the highest priority. Indeed, the Minister said that the will to act has never been stronger. It was very heartening to hear that. However, there will be a lot of changes on the Treasury Bench over the next couple of weeks, and we hope that those who really care about this will continue to make sure that it is pushed to the very top of the agenda. We can afford nothing else.
There were excellent contributions from colleagues across the House, and I want to reflect on a few of them. The right hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) put forward an excellent manifesto on behalf of electric vehicles. His speech was very well made. Indeed, he made my heart leap, as a Nottinghamian, when he talked about electrification of the midland main line. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) would say the same: we think that that is a priority project. When there is a change of Prime Minister, I will again, humbly but very sincerely, ask Ministers to prioritise that project. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman might join me in that, because the current approach is fundamentally wrong.
The hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) prioritised talking about economic benefits. That is important, because there is a danger that we discuss this issue in too many negative terms and it turns people off. We need to grasp that opportunity. I very much agree with what he said about making it a priority for each Department to report on its individual target. It is that kind of aggregate action that will make an impact.
The hon. Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan) began by talking in very sobering terms about mass extinction and loss of species. Again, if that does not act as a call to action to us, I really do not know what will. I did slightly depart from her argument when she talked about not being swept away by major promises on a grand scale. Pragmatism can indeed be very important in the difficult choices ahead, but I would say that we have to be really ambitious. There will have to be a step change in our approach in order to do this. I do not think that slogans are necessarily any use either, but that is certainly not what Labour Members are endorsing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) talked about citizens’ assemblies. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on deliberative democracy, I was very interested to hear that. I wonder if she might come and talk to our group about what her Select Committee is up to, because we are very interested in this sort of work. She echoed the comments of the hon. Member for Dundee West in saying that we have an awful lot to gain from a green industrial revolution. In my community, we have had four decades of deindustrialisation. That has absolutely scarred our community, and this is the route back from that. The tens of thousands of skilled, sustainable jobs in these industries are our future, so there is an awful lot to gain.
The hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) relayed lots of what David Attenborough had said to the Select Committee, which was a stand-still moment for all of us in Parliament. The hon. Gentleman is dead right to say that young people are ahead of us on this issue—a theme I will return to shortly. I echo his comments about the importance of faith. I really feel that faith communities can act as conveners within our local communities, because these are important places where people come together and are willing to be vulnerable and generous with each other. He talked about the individual actions we are going to take to change our lives, and faith communities have a really strong role to play in that.
The hon. Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally) said that when he talks to young people, there is a sense that adults have not done enough. That message has been loudly heard, and we now have to catch up. I was interested in his idea about local climate youth ambassadors. There is a lot of energy among young people. The two things I get asked when I go to my local schools are, “What are you doing about it, Mr Norris?” and, “What more can I do about it?” That would be a good avenue. Finally, the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) talked about the inconvenient truth; I agree. I would be interested to hear the response from those on the Treasury Bench to her strongly made point on fracking.
The shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden), set out clearly the Labour party’s programme for tackling the climate emergency and getting to grips with the root causes, and I want to build on that for a couple of minutes. One element is addressing our aid budget. The new and possibly outgoing Secretary of State for International Development says that he wants to spend more of the 0.7% set aside for aid on tackling the climate emergency. That level of ambition is great, and we all recognise how urgent the emergency is, but it should not be a zero-sum game.
I would like to be very clear that, for the Opposition, tackling the climate emergency must not come at the expense of tackling poverty and inequality abroad. That goes back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling—how do we lift billions out of poverty in a sustainable way? It cannot not be at the expense of aid spending on health, education and sexual violence against women and girls. I am sure the Minister agrees with that, and I would be interested to hear more on that.
UK aid spent on tackling the climate emergency must go towards climate-compatible development and climate justice. It must continue measurably and demonstrably to reduce poverty. It cannot be another excuse to repurpose the aid budget and take some money we would have spent somewhere else and badge it up as aid. That would really miss the point. Will the Government commit to finding additional funds for climate finance, rather than relying on incremental increases from the existing official development assistance budget? Will the Minister restate that all ODA-funded climate spending will directly and measurably help the world’s poorest, in line with current UK law?
Global climate justice also means that we must ensure that our transition in this country towards a better, greener future is not at the expense of the global south. The Opposition reject any new green colonialism, which is becoming too real a risk. We must not export our climate emergency overseas. We must solve the problem, not brush it under the carpet. That fundamental principle of global climate justice must be at the root of all the actions we take.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that the exporting of our climate problems is part of what we need to address in this House? I fear that, in trying to clean up our own act, we might be merely pushing the problem overseas to countries that are less well equipped and morally should not have to take responsibility for ensuring that what we do here is properly contributing to net zero carbon.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. That is a really inconvenient truth. We might think, “We’re only 1% of the world’s emissions. We’ll sort ourselves out,” but we must understand what we have exported. I talked about the deindustrialisation in my community. Those jobs and functions are happening elsewhere in the world, as are those emissions. We have to be very careful that we are not dishonest about that.
We must manage our waste properly rather than export it, filling the seas around south-east Asia with plastic. The principle of global climate justice must guide us to secure labour rights and fair supply chains when Britain pays for the raw materials to build millions of solar panels. It must guide us to net zero by reducing our emissions, not by simply supporting carbon offsetting and carbon markets that we know can generate enormous problems in the global south. It must guide us, as the shadow Chancellor has argued, to make our new green technologies available to the global south. Labour is clear: urgent action by the UK on the climate emergency must bring about justice and a new, fairer world, rather than a repeat of history.
I want to take a moment, with a little bit of self-indulgence, to talk about Nottingham. I was very proud today when I read in The Guardian that our council and city are arguably the most ambitious in the country, with our target of net zero carbon by 2028, our green transit, our trees and our bees. Indeed, I have beaten the hon. Member for Dundee West to it, as we have our own not-for-profit, locally run energy supplier. I would be interested in talking privately with him about his plans and how we might be able to work together on that.
As an Opposition, we have set out our plans. Earlier this year, my colleagues the shadow BEIS Secretary and the shadow DEFRA Secretary set out Labour’s ambitious environmental plan for a green transformation. The shadow Chancellor has spoken at great length about how we will green the City. We, the shadow DFID team, have set out in great detail our plans on entering government to ensure that our aid budget brings about climate justice. Shadow departmental teams across Labour’s Front Bench are now bringing forward policy plans to tackle the climate emergency. Across Government, we will recommit to the Paris agreement, explore bringing forward the date by which we can achieve the net zero target, and fight in the global financial institutions for a fairer global local economy that puts people and planet before profit. This is our promise as the next Labour Government, and that is what we will deliver.
Oral Answers to Questions
Alex Norris Excerpts(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Karen Lee (Lincoln) (Lab)
Greg Clark
The Taylor report, and indeed the Select Committee, considered the recommendation that has come from some sources to ban zero-hours contracts. The Taylor report concluded that banning zero-hours contracts
“would negatively impact many more people than it helped.”
The joint report by the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee found that people on zero-hours contracts preferred to have that flexibility, for the most part—[Interruption.] That was the evidence given to the Committee. The hon. Lady will know that we have committed to bringing in the right to request a stable-hours contract.
Alex Norris
I refer colleagues to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Last week, the GMB and Hermes struck a landmark deal that proved that secure work is compatible with new and emerging industries. Today, I am writing to DPD, which has a depot in my constituency, to ask it to meet the unions and follow suit. Will the Secretary of State say today that it is important that we establish good laws in this country, but companies can get on with it now? They can get around the table with their unions and secure the jobs for their people in their workplace.
Greg Clark
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. I met Tim Roache, the head of the GMB, last week and congratulated him and Hermes on having come to their agreement. It shows that good employers can work with their employees to agree what is the best for them mutually, and it is a very good example of that.
Fireworks: Public Sales
Alex Norris Excerpts(5 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
I enjoy taking part in e-petition debates, because although our world is governed by the parliamentary timetable, which often relates to Brexit, e-petitions are a good insight into what people are talking about and what they care about—they reflect thoughts that have captured the moment. Petitioners would not get to 100,000 signatures by getting 100 every day for 1,000 days. That is not how it works; it is about capturing the energy. The level of support for the petition, as well as the time of year that it was garnered, shows that it has captured a mood. It is important that we have a proper debate about it, and that the Government act and are clear about how they intend to do so.
When I talk to people in my constituency of Nottingham North, I hear familiar refrains—I suspect hon. Members will have heard the same in their communities—such as, “Bonfire night used to mean fireworks a couple of nights a year but now it means a good fortnight or so of disruption,” or “Fireworks are being set off earlier and earlier every year”. By any measure, there has been a fundamental shift in the availability of fireworks and in the way that people view them.
My interest in the subject is not about banning a good public fireworks display. For families and everyone else in the community, it is an event on the annual calendar on which we come together and enjoy an exhilarating night. I do not seek to discourage such events, which are traditions just like Christmas, Easter, Halloween and new year’s eve. As long as they are done properly, with safe displays and people who know what they are doing, these events are safe and exciting fun for everyone in the community.
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
We have an enormous fireworks display in the centre of Ipswich every year. Getting on for half the population of Ipswich seems to turn up. It is a wonderful occasion that is not just about fireworks—people come together for singing, dancing and food—and it is all absolutely safe. Does my hon. Friend agree that such events are the way forward?
Alex Norris
I think I shall be going to Ipswich next November—that sounds wonderful. The situation is very much the same in Nottingham; we have big events, and they are a good way to celebrate and enjoy. The petition shows that it is the things happening beyond those events, in our streets and in our parks, that cause real distress. Technology has moved on and the availability of fireworks has changed, and we have to move with the times.
I am conscious of time and know that many colleagues wish to speak, so I will come to my focus, which is the impact of prolonged periods of firework displays on household pets and the lives of their owners. Since my election to Parliament, I have been working closely on that with the Dogs Trust, and am keen to continue supporting them in championing the issue. I am the proud owner of two border collies, Boomer and Corona, who are such wonderful border collies that, as Members might know, they were joint winners of this year’s Westminster Dog of the Year competition. Please excuse that digression—I tell everyone that I meet. That can never be taken off me. The theme of the competition this year was fireworks, and the reason that we won was that Corona is particularly badly affected by them. We talked about some of the coping strategies we have developed, which I will touch on shortly. One of my commitments as an MP is to tackle the issue and it is something I am keen to do.
We are a nation of animal lovers, and that is not just about dogs. Cats Protection, Blue Cross, the Kennel Club, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home and many others have called for action. For these charities and more, it is clear that the sheer number of fireworks displays that take place in the UK around bonfire night is having a detrimental impact on animal welfare. I use the word “display” broadly; this is not just about organised displays, but all fireworks events—from someone letting one off in a park, to the full-blown displays.
Why is it such a problem? Why, as a pet owner and having spoken to pet owners in my constituency, do I think that the issue requires action now? As my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) said, people have been setting off fireworks in their gardens for years. What has changed? Well, the situation is different in terms of the scale and availability of fireworks. From 1 November—if not from Halloween, but certainly from the moment it has passed—pet owners get home from work, it is already dark as the clocks have changed, and they know they are going to have a shivering pet to deal with. They try to do all the things they need to do when they get home, but cannot take the dog out because it is petrified and, when there are fireworks going off, the dog might not want to walk or will not walk on certain streets, which is also a problem.
Dog owners might unlock their front door to be greeted by their dog cowering in the corner, and spend their time trying to ameliorate that with whatever tactics they can. We put a shirt on Corona, which acts like a swaddling coat, and that eases it a bit. Others have other solutions. That takes time and—I do not have children, but I suspect that this is analogous to having a baby— the moment we get peace and think “We have resolved this for now”, it starts again, because somebody else on the road is letting off fireworks. Whole evenings can pass like this, with no peace for the pet. Critically, that happens not just on 5 November, but from Halloween and, for us, it went on for a good week afterwards this year.
We accept that on 5 November, fireworks are inescapable, so our coping mechanism for bonfire night was to put our two dogs in the boot of the car and drive to the middle of nowhere. We thought, “Let’s try and get out of the city, as far away as we can”, and as hon. Members can imagine, that is actually really hard. Part of the problem with the countryside is that sound carries, and clearly we are such city dwellers that we had not grasped that. We spent our evening sat in the middle of Derbyshire.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Quite frankly, my hon. Friend should not have to do that—that is the nub of the problem. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), and I am sure that she would agree that we have debated this issue like nobody’s business over the years, but nothing seems to happen. We must look at the manufacture and contents of fireworks and at how they are policed, while certain events should require licences. The weakness in the system is the lack of trading standards officers to police fireworks. Why should the police have to do the job of trading standards officers?
Alex Norris
As a local authority councillor in the years before I was elected to this place, I had an excellent relationship with trading standards and would always stand up for their work keeping dodgy booze and fags out of children’s hands. Fireworks are another good example of their excellent work but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North said, they also have considerably diminished resources.
On 10 November, the night before Armistice Day, which was a Saturday this year, my wife and I went to a dinner near the city of Nottingham to commemorate it with the Western Front Association. Just before there had been a big flurry of fireworks, although the 10th is getting on for a week after bonfire night. It was a black-tie dinner—not what I am used to going to—but we had to take the dog with us. We went to this incredible dinner at Nottinghamshire County Council’s county hall and we had the dog in the boot, because in a dark, enclosed space he was a little happier. We were able to keep popping out to see that he was all right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) said, it just should not have to be that way. We are in no way unique.
Fireworks are now commonplace for birthday parties, family celebrations and lots of other things. We do not want to stamp out that joy—we are at our worst if we look like killjoys or as if we are humourless—but we have to accept that things are different, and we now have a night-time wall of noise stretching from the beginning of November for pushing a fortnight.
Fireworks may be sold by any person over the age of 18 between 7 am and 11 pm every day of the year. There is no legal requirement to have any form of licence, or training to set them up, once they have been bought. There are not many comparable situations in which we so willingly hand explosives over to people who do not know how to use them, other than by reading the leaflet. That does not seem like a good idea. It is easier than ever to put on private displays, and people are clearly choosing to do so.
In the run-up to 5 November this year, I did a campaign in conjunction with the Dogs Trust to raise awareness of some of the real issues pets face at this time of year and to encourage people positively to behave differently. We highlighted some of the key tips suggested by the Dogs Trust, such as attending organised community displays to reduce neighbourhood disturbance, limiting fireworks displays to half an hour if they are set off in your garden, or—a big one, which we would have really appreciated—people letting their neighbours know in advance when they plan to set off fireworks so that those neighbours can plan what to do. On 5 November, we knew that our neighbour would be letting off fireworks right next to our house, so we knew that we had to get out the house.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
Using fireworks illegally could result in prosecution, a fine of up to £5,000 and a prison sentence of up to six months, or an on-the-spot fine of £90. Does my hon. Friend agree that were the existing laws enforced, a lot of the issues would be solved, but that the laws are not being enforced?
Alex Norris
Yes, of course. Sanctions are only as strong as their enforcement regime. Without trading standards or community policing to enforce the powers, they will fundamentally not act as a deterrent. I take that point on board.
To conclude, as a Parliament we have been given a clear nudge from people who want us to think about all that. I have not been in this place a long time, but this request is clearly not before us for the first time. People are looking to see that we get it on this issue. The nature of how fireworks are used has changed, so Parliament needs to consider it and, ultimately, the Government need to act. If they believe that the regulations are sufficient, they should be very clear about that and about the enforcement toolkit involved. Pets give us so much, and having them is certainly a big part of my life. It sounds funny to say that I am in the Chamber today to stand up for pets and animals in general—they do not have a vote at the ballot box, but I do not care about that. Fundamentally, fireworks can cause an awful lot of distress and it is time we acted.
Oral Answers to Questions
Alex Norris Excerpts(5 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
The Minister for Energy and Clean Growth (Claire Perry)
In the Government’s response to the review, we committed to take forward recommendations to improve clarity on employment status, boost protections for agency workers and increase state enforcement of basic rights for vulnerable workers. Consultations finished last month, and we have had more than 420 responses. I give huge thanks to all stakeholders who contributed; we will be responding very shortly.
Alex Norris
Insecure work weakens our economy. Last week the Office for National Statistics reported falls in manufacturing and construction output. The past few weeks have been dominated by Ministers worrying about their jobs. When will the Government have a functioning industrial strategy that worries about my constituents’ jobs?
Claire Perry
I am sure the hon. Gentleman and his constituents will welcome today’s news that we have record employment in the British economy. We totally agree with him that the future of work is good work, which is why we commissioned the Taylor review and want to deal with the challenges of the gig economy. I hope that we will get cross-party support for those vital protections for his constituents and for mine.
Insecure Work and the Gig Economy
Alex Norris Excerpts(5 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) on securing the debate and on the powerful case that she made. Like me, she came to this place as a union activist and union member of staff. I refer colleagues to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Let us be clear about this: insecure work, especially that which is low paid, is a disease in my community. It causes ill health, poverty and low aspirations, and wittingly or unwittingly we immerse ourselves in it every day. It is the delivery driver about whom we wonder why they left quite so quickly; that is because of the timeframe in which they are trying to deliver their packages. It is the barista who serves us our coffee in the morning. It is the driver who drops us off after a night out. It is around us, and it is in plain sight.
Recently commissioned Government statistics show that a quarter of workers in the gig economy are paid below the national minimum wage. We would not accept that in any salaried sector. It is a cause of national scandal, and we ought to do something about it. It is right that we, as a Parliament, take an interest in this, but we need our Government to show leadership on it. At the moment we are actually looking to those outside Government to show that leadership, and I make absolutely no apologies for praising the work of our trade unions—of my union GMB, of Unite, of USDAW and of others—in shining a light on this issue, and of my Labour colleagues in trying to make this point. Look how many of us have come for the debate.
Our trade unions, which are the voice of workers across the country, have repeatedly warned that individuals are being pressured into signing away their rights and too often have to accept low pay as a default. Companies use whatever loopholes and grubby shortcuts they need to exploit people’s desperation. We have a responsibility to act, to close those loopholes and to stand up for the employee who, in that moment, simply cannot stand up for themselves.
On the sorts of actions we should ask for, the Trades Union Congress has come up with a helpful list of five wins that would improve matters very quickly and that could be acted on immediately. They are: banning zero-hours contracts, to ensure that workers get guaranteed hours; ensuring equal pay for agency workers by ending the Swedish derogation; cracking down on bogus self-employment and ensuring that those workers enjoy the same basic rights as other employees; allowing trade unions to access all workplaces, to support workers who need representation the most; and increasing resources and powers for enforcement.
Steps such as those, which put workers and people first—including those in my community—are what we need. They are what I want from Parliament and they are what we need our Government to act on.
Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill (First sitting)
Alex Norris ExcerptsTuesday 13th March 2018
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Act 2018 View all Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 13 March 2018 - (13 Mar 2018)
Bill Grant
I welcome the embracing of the new technology and I know it is not perfect right now. You seem rather negative, Hayden.
Hayden Wood: On smart meters? Oh no, we are extremely positive about smart meters, but not—
James Heappey
Q
Dermot Nolan: I think it is an opportunity for transformation. I have talked about some of the short to medium-term things we will do. Over the period of the price cap—this would probably be a legislative thing, working with the Department and ultimately with Parliament—it represents a chance to perhaps radically recast the supply market.
The supply market has become quite complex. I am not saying that the system of suppliers acting as vehicles for delivering the various obligations has not worked—in many ways, it has—but we see a situation in which a host of new suppliers will be entering the market in three to five years. These might be quite large ones that do not currently provide energy, and they could come in selling energy in a bundled product with other goods.
We will see electric vehicles being rolled out, and a price cap will have to deal with issues such as electric vehicle charging and how people are charged for them. I see a situation in four to five years’ time in which the energy market could have changed radically. The key point of the price cap is that it has to be flexible to any changes and fulfil its basic role of protecting consumers. With great respect to the suppliers in this room and suppliers already out there, I would hope that we could see radically different sets of people providing energy in five years’ time.
Alex Norris
Ofgem said to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee when this was being considered that the cap ought to be temporary. How do you feel about 2023 as the sunset clause? What should Members in 2023 have seen to be assured that the cap would be unnecessary?
Rob Salter-Church: It is right that everyone is focused on what happens at the end of the price cap. It is important to us that if the price cap is removed, then all consumers get to benefit from the new competitive market that we are seeking to create.
We are comfortable with how the Bill is currently drafted. It requires us to have a comprehensive report from 2020 on the state of competition, and whether we believe that the conditions for effective competition that benefit all consumers are in place. Every year, we will be providing recommendations to the Secretary of State.
We are confident that, as the Bill is drafted, there is sufficient opportunity for the Secretary of State to determine whether there is a future role for an overall price cap, or whether there are things within our powers that we should be doing. Earlier on, Dermot mentioned the likely ongoing need for vulnerable consumer price protection. More broadly, we will be able to report on the progress made by us in creating what is ultimately a more effective form of competition where everyone benefits, whether you choose to switch or whether you choose to stay with your current supplier.
Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill (Second sitting)
Alex Norris ExcerptsTuesday 13th March 2018
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Act 2018 View all Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 13 March 2018 - (13 Mar 2018)
Claire Perry
I would like to speak to amendments 4, 8, 9 and 10 and new clause 1. I will start with the first part of amendment 4, which requires a hard estimate on the face of the Bill as to what the saving might be. I was delighted to hear the hon. Member for Southampton, Test quoting our Prime Minister so extensively. I could quote some of the things she has said about the Labour party, but I would not like to challenge the spirit of cross-party consensus. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman really does not want to tempt me on that.
We can all sit and make estimates of what the savings ought to be, but all of that will depend on the level at which Ofgem chooses to set the cap.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Minister think that it is regrettable that, in the newspaper with the biggest circulation in the nation, a legitimate expectation may now be created that the saving will be at £100 or greater?
Caroline Flint
I thank the Minister for that intervention—I aspire to be a book. [Interruption.] A library, no less. Goodness. People will not be able to work out what the hell we are talking about in this Committee!
A lot has been done to drive investment in the renewable sector, and some of that is ongoing. My hon. Friend is quite right that the renewable obligation is coming to, if not its end, then close to it. We also have contracts for difference. We also have the renewable heat incentive for heat. A business in my constituency that produces green gas is a beneficiary of that. In lots of different ways, there continues to be support for renewable energy of one form or another. No doubt, should it get the green light, the tidal lagoon will also be receiving a contract for difference that will guarantee a price for what it produces over a number of years.
I would question my hon. Friend, and also the Minister—she has tried to tighten up the wording and, in this clause, has enabled Ofgem to step in, assess, consult and what-have-you—because I am still not convinced that there is any need for exemptions in the way they suggest. The more complicated things become, the more clarification that is required and the more points at which Ofgem is tied up finding a formula for what the price should be—we will have more discussions down the road about how often that should happen and the methodology for that—the more tasks we are giving it, which could lead to more confusion. The last thing I want, after all this, is a legal challenge that could stop the price cap being in place in time for the people we care about as they start paying their winter bills in 2018 and early 2019.
I hope we can think more about those issues. We may not resolve them today, but we should give them some more thought—I certainly will. I might be wrong about this, and I am happy to receive submissions and thoughts from others outside this place. For reasons of simplicity, and for the development of the renewable energy market and how it has been helped to get to a place where it provides cheaper energy today than our fossil fuels, it is still worth considering whether any kind of exemption is warranted in the Bill.
Alex Norris
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McDonagh. I will briefly follow the contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test and my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley with one simple point.
I should say, for context, that we have obviously broken out into violent agreement—that is always good—not just on the need for the legislation, but on what it is for. It is not the end state that we seek, but a key part of getting us on the journey there. We all want the market and the providers to use this time, whether the full five years or not, to change practices so that, at the other end, the consumer gets what they need. There is a lot of enthusiasm for that.
With that in mind, as we look at each and every line in the Bill, we should think about how the individual words fall and the unintended consequences that might arise from a superfluous word or a missing word, because we know—and we would expect nothing less—that there will be conversations in the big companies about the different ways to approach the next five years. The choice will be whether to genuinely change or to game the system. We have to be mindful of that and look to close down every possible opportunity to game the system, so as to be clear that this is legislation to drive proper change. It is a short-term cap, but will lead to a long-term benefit.
The amendment does that. It takes up the cudgels from what the Select Committee said. It is proportionate, simple and easy to understand. I understand that delivering what sits behind it may be complicated, but it sends a clear signal about what this Parliament values and I support it.
Claire Perry
One little word has provoked a substantial and excellent debate. There is a genuine sense in the Committee that we all want to achieve the same thing: companies not being able to game the system, and tariffs that deliver for consumers and do what they say on the tin, so that if they say they are renewable, they are actually renewable, not just a package of greenwash. That is why I genuinely feel that the crowdsourced approach to legislation can be very good. I pay tribute to the Select Committee process, once again ably represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling, who helped us to focus on the issue. I was pleased to hear several hon. Members comment that we have tightened up the wording accordingly.
We are wrestling with questions around gaming and what a green tariff looks like, and this question of “wholly” or “in part”. All those will be addressed by two processes, which I will talk briefly about. First, as the right hon. Member for Don Valley said, we have quite properly tasked Ofgem with looking at the whole issue. I think I am right in saying that it has never been asked to review the whole suite of green tariffs in the market and opine on whether they are any such thing.
A co-benefit of the whole process will be understanding what is out there, whether it is wholly, partially or not at all green, and what the price premium for some of those products is. I was a very early Good Energy customer, over 10 years ago, and—
Nuclear Safeguards Bill
Alex Norris ExcerptsTuesday 23rd January 2018
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Nuclear Safeguards Act 2018 View all Nuclear Safeguards Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 23 January 2018 - (23 Jan 2018)
Trudy Harrison
I thank my hon. Friend. It is important that we hold the Minister and the Department to account, and that we focus on the critical path of recruiting the right number of staff into the ONR and ensuring that the regime is in place when we leave. We need to get on with the job, and the 70-something businesses in my constituency absolutely want us to do that.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Lady and I were both in the evidence-gathering sitting of the Bill Committee, in which Dr Golshan said that
“we will not be able to replicate Euratom standards on day one.”––[Official Report, Nuclear Safeguards Public Bill Committee, 31 October 2017; c. 7, Q9.]
Is this perhaps a matter of fact, rather than a question of confidence in Britain? In taking this course of action without the safeguard that my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) has proposed, we will leave ourselves without the coverage that we need.
Trudy Harrison
I have already said that I believe the transition period will happen, as the Prime Minister has indicated. New clause 1 is a delaying tactic, and that is absolutely not what the industry needs. We need certainty, and we need it today. I am pleased that the Department is already acting to recruit to the ONR safeguarding inspectors, who will also have responsibility for safety and security. That seems to me to provide vital synergies of shared knowledge and shared experience across the board in the nuclear sector.
Ben Bradley
I do not know the hon. Gentleman’s background, but I guess, by the sounds of it, it probably is not business.
We cannot fix the plan for withdrawal and implementation in stone now. The Labour party wants to build into the Bill a clause saying that the Bill is contingency only. Our relationship with Euratom is subject to negotiation. No one has written anything off. We want a positive relationship, but we might have to develop and rely on our own framework, and the work to put it in place needs to happen now. An amendment to say that the Bill is merely a contingency would achieve the opposite of its intention by reducing impetus and leading to delays in the process of getting our safeguards in place, which is only bad for the industry and for all the things the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) tried to raise.
That is why I oppose new clause 1, and I hope to speak later about my support for the Bill more broadly.
Alex Norris
I enjoyed serving on the Public Bill Committee, and I rise to speak in support of new clauses 1 and 2, and amendment 3.
On new clause 1, while I have slightly buried the lead by referencing this earlier, it needs full consideration in this place. Members need to know the judgment of Dr Golshan, who is responsible at the ONR for recreating Euratom in this country:
“Our aim, currently, is to have a system in place that enables the UK to fulfil its international obligations by March 2019, which is when we intend to leave Euratom. I have been very clear in the past—I will repeat it here—that we will not be able to replicate Euratom standards on day one.”––[Official Report, Nuclear Safeguards Public Bill Committee, 31 October 2017; c. 7, Q9.]
Members should reflect on that, whatever the political knockabout, because it makes a compelling case for a transition period. Otherwise we will be saying that our nuclear safeguards regime should not be as good as it is today, and I have not heard anyone suggesting that—I do not believe that it would be tolerable.
A week is a long time in politics, and three months is a lifetime in the Brexit process—perhaps it just feels like that—but over that period we have seen the Government move on this point. Conservative Members asked how we can talk about this hypothetical idea. Well, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy himself said less than two weeks ago that the Government want Euratom to be involved in the implementation period. Now is the time to make good on that.
In a similar vein, on new clause 2, if I had £1 for every time someone mentioned in Committee that this is a contingency Bill, I would be able to meet the Foreign Secretary’s new financial commitment to the NHS. The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Watford (Richard Harrington), would be a particularly significant donor, having mentioned that many times.
If this is a contingency Bill, we really should say what it is contingent on, and we should say that in the Bill. Otherwise it is not a contingency Bill, but a Bill that will be law until the Minister decides on the 19.52 train home that it is not law any more. That is not a satisfactory way to legislate.
Finally, on amendment 3, one issue that has developed since Second Reading is whether we actually have to do any of this. Ministers clearly said on Second Reading that leaving Euratom is legally necessary as part of leaving the EU. We tested that in Committee. I asked two senior lawyers in this area, Jonathan Leech and Rupert Cowan from Prospect Law, whether triggering article 50 necessitates leaving Euratom and if they would have advised the Government to follow this path. To the first question they answered “No” and “Absolutely not” respectively. Jonathan Leech’s answer to the second question was:
“The advice would be that you do not have to accept this and it may not be in your interests to do so.”––[Official Report, Nuclear Safeguards Public Bill Committee, 31 October 2017; c. 12, Q23.]
That is significant, and it is a departure from where we were on Second Reading.
I represent a leave constituency, and I am always mindful of that when dealing with anything relating to Brexit. I have spent a lot of time knocking on doors and have heard every conceivable argument for remaining or leaving. Funnily enough, I never heard the argument—I suspect no one in this Chamber did—that our membership of Euratom is undesirable, or that there is a desire for a diminution of our nuclear safeguards regime. There is not much of a case for doing this if we do not have to. If we are doing it only because of an arbitrary red line drawn up in Downing Street that we could cross while still delivering Brexit, we are fools to do so. Either way, as amendment 3 states, Ministers ought to come to this place to justify their approach, because once again this is not a decision for the 19.52 train.
Lots of work has gone into the Bill and I have enjoyed participating in its consideration. I believe that we should all support the Opposition proposals, because they would make the Bill better and then we might not need it at all.
Richard Harrington
I thank all Members who have contributed to the debate. Those who have heard our consideration of the Bill for the first time today will not realise, given that most of our discussion has been about one or two new clauses, that many other aspects were discussed in Committee. I pay tribute to the Opposition Members who have participated, as well Government Members, and particularly the hon. Members for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), and for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), whose cameo Brexit role has been well appreciated. Many points were dealt with by consensus in Committee and in our discussions afterwards. Today’s debate has focused on new clause 1, but I will also speak to the other new clauses and amendments in the group.
The overall strategy for withdrawal from Euratom, and our ambitions for our future relationship with it, were the subject of a comprehensive written statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 11 January. I think that most Members on both sides of the House would agree that, as I have stated publicly in Committee and privately afterwards, we are seeking the closest and most effective association with Euratom. We are therefore putting in place all the measures necessary to ensure that the UK can operate as an independent and responsible nuclear state from day one.
As Members will be fully aware, the nature of our future relationship with Euratom is part of the next phase of negotiations, which is yet to start. The written statement set out the principles upon which our strategy is based, many of which have been discussed today: to aim for continuity with current relevant Euratom arrangements; to ensure that the UK maintains its leading role in European nuclear research; and to ensure that the nuclear industry in the UK has the necessary skilled workforce. We will be seeking: a close association with Euratom’s research and training programme, which includes the JET project and the international thermonuclear experimental reactor project; continuity of open trade arrangements to ensure that the nuclear industry can continue to trade across EU borders; and maintenance of close and effective co-operation with Euratom on nuclear safety.