Shale Gas Extraction

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)]

What a pleasure it is to be continuing on this theme—

[Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Get the right page!

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Indeed, the hon. Lady is right to be saying that I need to find the right page because I am having some difficulty in finding the right page immediately, but do not worry. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Unusually, I disagree with my right hon. Friend. It is all a matter of proportionality. As I pointed out, the movement on ground level from construction is about double that we have had from any instance with shale gas. We know what has happened before. There are not limits on mining. There are not limits on ordinary oil extraction. It is only shale gas that has limits, and there is no evidence that shale gas is worse than any of those other activities. So, I think, on a balance of risks, my right hon. Friend is not coming to the right conclusion.

[Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

It is a bit rich of the self-styled Minister for the 19th century to think that the CEO of Cuadrilla is out of date. The Secretary of State’s manifesto said:

“We will not support fracking unless the science shows categorically that it can be done safely.”

The science has not proved categorically that it can be done safely, so he is reneging on his solemn promise, which all Conservative Members stood on, to the British people in 2019. This is not a legitimate thing for this Government to do, is it?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I must reiterate that the former chief executive of Cuadrilla resigned 10 years ago. He does not represent the company and that is important. The House would be put under a misapprehension if it were to think that he is currently involved. As regards the last manifesto, I happily stood on the last manifesto because I had read the 2012 report that went through most of the myths against shale gas and showed that they were wrong and that the extraction of shale gas is safe.

Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 7th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I have spoken to colleagues across the House. We will certainly look at how to draft the measure correctly to ensure that it serves its purpose. We will certainly look in the other place to debate that further.

[Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Paul Scully]

I will not give way for a second, because I want to ensure that we can cover the ground. I will deal with some of the opposing amendments at the right time: at the end of the Committee.

Clauses 20 to 30 cover the annotation and inspection of the register, and the disclosure, protection, correction and removal of information. Clauses 31 to 39 cover measures including the false statement offence and amendments to land registration as well as provisions about offences and penalties. The schedules define key terms such as “registrable beneficial owner” and cover amendments to land registration laws, for example, regarding land ownership and transactions for England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Will the Minister give way?

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point; it comes back to something that was said in the previous debate about persons of significant control, which I did not address at the time. However, I will take that point away and discuss it with the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and others to make sure that we can get any drafting on that exactly right.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Will the Minister give way?

[Paul Scully]

I will not just because I want to make sure that we can cover all the areas, and we will be short of time.

Important changes in part 2 include changing the unexplained wealth order regime, increasing the scope of the existing powers to ensure that an enforcement authority can obtain the information that they need even when the assets in question are held in trusts or other complex ownership structures. That is to ensure that the true owners cannot hide their claim over assets to avoid the force of the law. The introduction of an alternative test to the existing income requirement also provides flexibility for agencies to tailor the UWO applications to the facts of a case.

Clauses 44 to 47 will mitigate the significant operational risks to an enforcement authority and provide a more encouraging basis for them to use their powers to seek a UWO: first, by extending the period for which an interim freezing order has effect, enabling agencies to review material provided in response to a UWO without significant time pressures; and secondly, by reforming the cost rules to protect law enforcement against incurring substantial legal costs following an adverse ruling.

Part 3—clauses 48 to 51—strengthens the financial sanctions legislation to change the monetary penalty test and internal review process. Those changes will allow the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation to publicly name sanctions breaches even when no monetary penalty has been imposed and allow for greater information sharing across Government.

We are really grateful for the support of all parties in passing this legislation as quickly as possible, but in the light of the deteriorating situation and the Government’s desire to work together to strengthen and accelerate this package, I want to outline further measures that we have tabled as Government amendments.

New clauses 32 to 40 will amend the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 to streamline the current legislation so that we can respond even more swiftly and effectively to sanction oligarchs, individuals and businesses associated with Putin’s regime and others like them in the future. New clause 32 will simplify the procedural requirements that can delay the implementation of sanctions. New clauses 33 and 34 are designed to streamline the designation of individuals and entities, allowing us better to respond to fast-moving events. New clause 36 will ensure that the proposed changes in new clauses 33 to 35 will apply to sanctions regulations that are already in place. New clause 37 will remove the requirement for Ministers to review each sanctions regime every year and to review each designation every three years. That will free up vital resource to focus on developing new designations.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Will the Minister give way?

[Paul Scully]

I will—the hon. Lady has been trying so hard.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I thank the Minister for giving way finally, but it all counts. He seemed to be saying to colleagues earlier that his attitude to our amendments is that he is willing to discuss them after the Commons stages of the Bill and to do something in the Lords. Is that what he is saying? Is he telling us today that the Government will not accept any more Opposition or Back-Bench amendments and that he will leave it to the House of Lords to change these things? Clearly, if that is going to be his attitude, we need to know.

[Paul Scully]

I will cover the amendments more fully in my closing remarks, once they have been spoken to. None the less, I want to ensure that the amendments with which I have sympathy do exactly what they are intended to do and that the drafting is right. I am happy to work with colleagues who have tabled them to make sure that we can get that right and to see what more we can do in the other place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss]

I have not received that assurance from the Minister, but I would be glad to do so. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) and I served on that Bill Committee together, and a lot of the evidence that was given at the time still stands today. Many of the things we were warned about, such as shifting things into trusts, have happened, and the Government need to act on the warnings that they were given.

Turning to schedule 4, the register proposed in the Bill is not as transparent as the Scottish register, which will come into force on 1 April. Transparency International and the Chartered Institute of Taxation have said that the UK Government could learn from Scotland on this. As I say, Scotland’s register of persons holding a controlled interest in land in Scotland goes live on 1 April, and I would like to thank Jennifer Henderson, the Keeper of the Registers of Scotland, and her team of experts for taking the time to meet me last week to discuss this.

Transparency International has warned that this Government’s proposed register could not be as transparent as Scotland’s because the legislation as drafted does not require the disclosure of the ultimate beneficial owner of the property, but rather the disclosure of the beneficial owner of the overseas entity that in turn owns the property. Scotland’s register notes, per piece of land, who the beneficial owner of the land is. For example, it notes which companies have land registered to them, and who has significant control of those companies. I am sure that I could draw a diagram that would explain this better than my description, but my understanding is that if a holding company has five or six different pieces of land for three oligarchs, the Scottish register would show which oligarch each piece of land belonged to, but that the register as laid out in this Bill would not. I ask the UK Government to consider taking a lesson from Scotland, to speak to Registers of Scotland and to review changes such as this, so that we can properly understand who owns what.

The Chartered Institute of Taxation said that

“if the government’s aim is a public register of ownership of land it does not achieve this”.

It also said:

“The UK Government may also want to look at the Scottish approach which is to reveal the person who has ‘significant influence or control’ over the owner or long-lease tenant of land and property in Scotland.”

According to the Scottish Government, this means that

“it will be possible to look behind every category of entity in Scotland, including overseas entities and trusts, to see who controls land.”

Further to this, I would be grateful if the Minister could provide the clarification that the Law Society of Scotland has asked for on the way in which the two registers will interact, on how any disputes will be resolved—including on what is registered and what takes precedence—and on whether any additional resource will be provided directly from the UK Government to Registers of Scotland so that it can continue this work.

It is vital that Companies House reform does not slip off the agenda. We would have pressed new clause 4 to a vote, had it not been so similar in intention to the official Opposition’s new clause 7. It is unfortunate that all we are getting on Companies House will be a White Paper. We have already had extensive consultation on this, and we know the problems. They are obvious, and the Government have no excuse for not acting on them today.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Does the hon. Lady share my frustration, which was widely voiced in the Treasury Committee when we were doing our report on economic crime, that although the Government have known what is wrong with Companies House for a very long time, we have had virtually no movement to reform it except for an announcement that there might be enough money to do so in 2024?

[Alison Thewliss]

The hon. Lady is right. This is entirely inadequate. With every day that passes, more and more guff gets put on to the Companies House register and the less valuable it becomes as a register.

We need finally to introduce verification. It is beyond belief that there is no Government verification scheme. Filing a tax return or applying for a passport or driving licence all require the use of a Government verification scheme. Graham Barrow, a Companies House expert, has pointed out that people need more ID to take out a library book than to set up a company in this country. That is absolutely ridiculous. Verification, when it is brought in, must also apply retrospectively. Companies House must go back through the register and look at all issues that existed in the past, because there is already so much nonsense in the register that needs to be weeded out, not just for reasons of accuracy but because it is being used to defraud people and by companies that are phoenixing. It is being used for all kinds of things that are resulting in people losing out.

Graham Barrow has also suggested that Companies House verification could reduce incorporations by close to 50% while making practically zero difference to corporate commercial activity in the UK. That shows the level of guff in the Companies House register. The examples of failures of accuracy at Companies House are legion. A Global Witness report in 2019 found an address in London where at least two company service providers appeared to host a number of companies apparently controlled by children under the age of two, who not only had access to the profits of the company but also the right to appoint directors and voting rights. That is quite extraordinary. There are some quite prodigious two-year-olds on that register.

It is long past time to act. The SNP’s new clause 4 would make Companies House an anti-money laundering supervisor, as it is strange that Companies House is not. That would go some way towards closing the door on those who seek to abuse the system. I wrote to the Government consultation three years ago to say that Companies House must have better and more robust mechanisms to ensure the information it holds relating to beneficial ownership is adequate, accurate and current. That still stands today.

There has also been a lack of action on Scottish limited partnerships. When I made my submission to the consultation, no fines had been handed out for non-compliance. Three years and four months later, I am pleased to report that is no longer true. Of the thousands of Scottish limited partnerships that have registered no person of significant control, there has now been a single fine of £210. We can all agree it is not the best deterrent if there is no consequence for not following the rules.

The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) spoke earlier of action, but action is not impressive if those who have continually not complied with the rules do not even face a fine. That goes for all the mechanisms in the Bill that levy a fine. If the Government will not actually levy a fine and collect the money, there is little point putting it in the Bill.

SNP new clause 23 would ensure that beneficial owners of Scottish limited partnerships must, at last, be published, which would ensure transparency. Scottish limited partnerships are being used, again and again, in nefarious ways to move money and goods around the world. They have been involved in war crimes, child pornography and arms deals. The loopholes in Scottish limited partnerships and at Companies House have to be closed, as they harm not only individuals who suffer the effects of these crimes but Scotland’s reputation. Although they are called Scottish limited partnerships, Scotland plays no part in them. They are an historical arrangement legislated for in this place.

The Scottish Government’s crime campus at Gartcosh is doing great co-ordination work on tackling economic crime in Scotland, but much of the legislation and company registration responsibility that holds us back is still held here at Westminster. Our good name must not be tarnished any longer by continued inaction on these reserved matters.

SNP amendment 41 would ensure that reasons are given for any company claiming to have no beneficial owner or person with significant control. At the moment, companies do not have to account for that. They can just say, “We don’t have an owner, and we do not know who has significant control.” That is not acceptable, particularly when we consider that Scottish limited partnerships possess a separate legal personality allowing them to own assets, to enter into contracts, to sue or be sued, to own property, to borrow money and to issue certain kinds of security. Typically, limited partnerships are not treated as separate legal personalities and are not able to do those things, but Scottish limited partnerships are uniquely different in that way.

Scottish limited partnerships are taxed as though they do not have a separate legal personality, and no tax is payable by the partnership itself. Instead, the tax authorities look through the partnership structure and tax the partners on their share of partnership income and gains, in line with their profit-sharing ratios. Provided that the partnership is not trading in the UK, however, no UK tax will be payable by non-UK-resident partners.

We have known for years that Scottish limited partnerships are a dodge, and that money has gone in and out without taxation. We know they have been used to launder millions of pounds in dirty money created by illicit business activities. We need to see action finally to put a stop to this.

Unexplained wealth orders have been lauded by the Government in recent weeks as a powerful tool to tackle dirty money, but only nine have been used in four cases since their introduction in 2018. We support improvements to unexplained wealth orders, and we support bringing property held in trust into scope. We hope this will finally allow the National Crime Agency to do more with unexplained wealth orders and make them work.

Tom Keatinge of RUSI explained to the Treasury Committee today that unexplained wealth orders have not survived contact with reality. We can only hope that the reforms will make them more effective and more anchored in reality.

Susan Hawley, the executive director of Spotlight on Corruption, cautioned:

“The focus needs to be on confiscating and seizing assets not just investigating them… Without addressing the serious issues that law enforcement faces from shrinking budgets, decrepit IT systems, to…losing staff to the private sector, the new legislation will not make any difference at all.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Davis]

I will speak solely to cross-party new clause 29. It is a very simple clause with a simple purpose: to make sure that the sanctions we intend against the oligarchs in Putin’s regime are actually effective.

I remind the House of a previous occasion when we had great fanfare for action against economic crime. Since we introduced unexplained wealth orders some years ago, we have tried to operate the orders only nine times against four individuals, and they have worked only twice. They failed seven out of nine times. The Government are doing something in this Bill to try to improve the equality of arms between Government lawyers and the multimillion-pounds-a-year lawyers on the other side. The Government have done good work that will help, but it does not address, because it cannot address, the most fundamental problem with unexplained wealth orders because, since 1990, it has been almost impossible to get any trustworthy evidential information out of Russia. The very least that does is slow the process leading to sanctions. The process leading to sanctions will be incredibly difficult and incredibly slow even with this better balance.

The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have confirmed that the Government have—this is a tabloid quote, I am afraid—a “hitlist” of more than 100 oligarchs. So far, 11 days into this conflict, we have sanctioned just 17 individuals, with some very obvious and notable exceptions who we can see and hear redisposing their assets even as we sit here. Press reports have quoted Government sources suggesting that it will take six months to work through the rest of the hitlist. And the rest, as I suspect it will take longer.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I am a big supporter of the right hon. Gentleman’s new clause. President Zelensky is to address us tomorrow; would it not be good for us to be able to tell him that that new clause was accepted tonight? We would then be able to say that we can crack down much faster.

[Mr Davis]

It would be good. It would allow us to crack down more effectively; not so much more quickly but more effectively.

What will we see during the months it takes to get people to the legal point at which they are sanctioned? We will see Russians scrambling to sell off their houses, dispose of their businesses and offload their football clubs. In respect of many of the measures, we will know a lot more about it and be much better informed, if none the wiser, with respect to what they are doing. Multimillion-pound car collections will be loaded into jets; anchors will be weighed on superyachts; priceless artworks will be squirrelled away—all to wend their way back to Russia or some other safe haven for these people. By the time our sanctions have taken effect on not all but many of the oligarchs, the horse will have well and truly bolted. Indeed, the background noise is currently the sound of a stampede of horses bolting as the door on the stables creaks shut. That is what we have to put right.

My new clause will help to prevent all that. It will not do everything, because it is only one piece of the repertoire of things we need to do, but it will allow the Government to publish a hitlist—forgive the tabloid term—or a list of individuals who are being considered for sanctions. In the same way as someone may wait on bail before they face trial, the freedoms of those on the list will be restricted for the period so that they do not flee. Once a person’s name appears on the list, their ability to sell, liquidate or transfer out of our jurisdiction their assets—cars, homes, businesses, jets, investments, cash and so on—will be frozen. They will then be unable to sell those assets or move them out of the UK. They will still be able to use them—there will be beneficial advantage to them—but their ability to thwart what we are trying to do today will be restricted.

Given my history in this House, some may be rather surprised that I am willing to see a restriction of a specific human property right—that is what my new clause amounts to and that is quite unusual for me—but we need to take action now; otherwise, any sanctions that the Government seek to impose will be entirely meaningless for a large number of these people. We see Chelsea being sold today and all sorts of actions going on that cannot be helpful to what we are trying to achieve. My new clause would give the Government breathing space—time to go through the legalities of formally sanctioning the oligarchs and pals of Putin who rightly deserve to be the target of sanctions.

Although the Government have identified 100 oligarchs to sanction, other countries have identified more. This is going to be a long war. The sanctions are going to be in place for years, not months. They will have effect only if we move more quickly than the targets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

It is both telling and deeply disappointing that it has taken a vicious and horrific conflict to bring us to this point of closing down the London laundromat.

I am speaking on behalf of my party rather than proposing any specific amendments, so I shall be very brief. I welcome amendments 42 to 44, tabled by the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), to toughen penalties for non-compliance with the register. We see this as a necessary precondition to increase the immediate costs of non-compliance with UK law. We will also be supporting the right hon. Member’s new clauses 2 and 3.

Past actions, including the much-trumpeted unexplained wealth orders, have done little to dent Russian influence in London, partly owing to the Government’s poor resourcing of enforcement agencies. New clause 2 would bring long overdue scrutiny of that significant weakness, and renewed support for our enforcement agencies. As the Russia report made clear, illicit money does not simply flow into London and the UK by its own volition; it is eased in by a wide network of enablers, from bankers to lawyers to estate agents—Russia’s little helpers in stashing ill-gotten gains and off-the-shelf influence. That is why we will also be supporting new clause 3, as well as amendment 41, tabled by my SNP colleagues, in order to curb the ability of shell companies and other indirect ownership instruments, as well as their paid London enablers, to obfuscate ownership structures for their clients. Those measures, along with new clauses 4 and 9, will tighten the massive loophole that prevents us from having a properly resourced, properly empowered and properly directed Companies House.

New clause 21 would help to address the issue of enforcement in Crown dependencies and British overseas territories. My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) has already raised with the Foreign Secretary the issue of the enforcement of sanctions in overseas territories such as Bermuda, where more than 700 Russian civilian aircraft are registered. We hope that new clause 21 will bring clarity to this long-standing grey area of enforcement.

However, none of this matters if the targets of the Bill are able to make off with their loot in the next few weeks. I therefore urge the Government to work with the Opposition, and to support new clauses 28 and 30 to ensure that the sanctions and the powers work to the maximum possible effect.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I support all the amendments that are intended to close loopholes in this long-overdue legislation, narrowing the gap between the Government’s rhetoric and the reality of what it is possible for them to do, strengthening the legislation, and ensuring that we have transparency so that we know who owns what, so that people can indeed be sanctioned, and so that their progress across our financial system can be followed in a meaningful way to make sanctions a reality. I also support new clauses 7 and 2, which seek to beef up enforcement.

Today, we in the Treasury Committee heard that the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation has 37.8 full-time equivalent staff. I put it to the Government that that is not nearly enough for us to make sanctions against Russia workable and effective. We also learned recently that the National Crime Agency had no Russian speakers. I am not sure how it is meant to pursue sanctions against Russia if it does not have anyone with the appropriate language skills to do so. I hope that it will be beefing up its enforcement activities as well.

We understand and support what the Government are trying to do with this legislation. It is long overdue, and we think it needs to be strengthened. The bewildering and fragmented nature of enforcement, and its underfunding, must be put right if we are to get to the stage where we can finally deal with the corruption of our financial system and its infiltration by those authoritarian regimes and kleptocrats who are putting our democracy at risk, and who, even as we are having this debate, are murdering and bombing innocent people in Ukraine and threatening the peace and prosperity of Europe and the world. I hope that the Government will listen and accept a lot of these amendments by the time the Bill comes back to this House in due course.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in support of new clauses 7 and 8, but I want to start by expressing my solidarity with the people of Ukraine, who face unimaginable heartbreak and horror, and particularly to black residents who have been subject to unacceptable levels of racism and brutality. I call on this Government to open our doors and welcome without discrimination all refugees who are fleeing oppression, violence, occupation and war. I applaud the courageous protesters in Russia, at home and across the world who are demonstrating for peace.

The National Crime Agency estimates that £100 billion of dirty money flows through the UK every single year. This is not a new phenomenon. Since as early as 2016, the Government have been making empty promises for tighter regulations to prevent these illicit activities, but since then, £1.5 billion-worth of property here has been bought by Russian oligarchs accused of corruption with links to the Kremlin. As long ago as 2018, draft legislation was published by this Government for a register of beneficial ownership to consolidate and clarify our legal structures in order to prevent profiteering by way of laundering money through the UK property market, but despite a wealth of evidence pointing to the illicit activities of oligarchs in London and elsewhere in the UK, the Government have done nothing but kick the can into the long grass. Given the almost £2 million received in Russia-linked donations by the Tory party since the current Prime Minister entered No. 10, it seems pretty clear why.

Labour has consistently been on the front foot when it comes to clamping down on oligarchs. Our plan included an oligarch levy to tax secret offshore purchases of UK residential property, the application of the Magnitsky clause to apply sanctions against human rights abuses, and to extend the beneficial ownership register for Crown dependencies and overseas territories. Labour has not just jumped on the bandwagon now that this has become the issue of the day; we have been putting forward detailed plans to tackle this injustice for many years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has pointed out. Our amendments today will give this toothless Bill some bite, speeding up action against some of the worst offenders and bringing forward reforms to Companies House that will root out the activities of criminal elites who are legitimising their loot in the UK without scrutiny or repercussions. I hope the Minister will commit today to backing our amendments.

Economic Crime: Planned Government Bill

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Wednesday 26th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

I congratulate my hon. Friend and thank her for the work she does in this area. We have had a number of conversations and we will always look to see what more we can do to strengthen the whistleblowing framework in legislation. We do not necessarily agree on the end result, but, again, it is a complicated area that we do want to get right, for the reasons she set out. I will continue to work with her and with my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton.

[Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

While the Minister wrings his hands, London has become the jurisdiction of choice for dirty money. The levels of fraud are soaring upwards in the wrong direction. We have waited years and years for the open register of beneficial ownership of companies and it has not appeared, and we have waited years and years for corporate liability reform. How much longer do we have to wait? How much worse are this Government going to let fraud and money laundering get before they get off their collective backside and do something?

[Paul Scully]

What I am not going to do is pre-empt Her Majesty.

Post Office Historical Shortfall Scheme

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Tuesday 14th December 2021 Westminster Hall

[Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)]

Before we begin, I remind Members that they are expected to wear face coverings when they are not speaking in the debate, in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. I remind Members that they are asked by the House to have a covid lateral flow test twice a week if coming on to the parliamentary estate. This can be done either at the testing centre in the House or at home. Please also give each other and members of staff space when seated, and when entering and leaving the room.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Post Office Historical Shortfall Scheme.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to serve under you in the Chair, Dame Angela. I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) to his place as a substitute for the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), who has executive departmental responsibility for this issue.

I have a number of specific concerns about the Post Office’s administration of the historical shortfall scheme, which I will come to in due course, but I want to say something to the Minister and his colleagues in Government. If he takes nothing else away from the debate, I want him to take this away: from assisting constituents in relation to the HSS, it has become apparent to me and, I have no doubt, to others in the House that the culture in the Post Office still leaves a great deal to be desired. It is probably not unique for the Post Office to have a poor culture, but I say that because it has been accepted by Ministers. In fact, it is now a universally accepted truth that what happened in relation to the Horizon scandal was allowed to happen, and happened for as long as it did, because of the culture in the Post Office.

My basic concern is that if the culture is still not right, such a scandal could happen again. This is an opportunity for Ministers. We do not expect them to be responsible for the day-to-day management of the scheme or anything else in the Post Office—there are plenty of people who are rather handsomely paid to do that—but Ministers can and should insist on seeing that there has been a demonstrable change of culture.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)]

I call Kevan Jones next. I hope to call the Minister at 20 past 11.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this debate today. He talks about culture. I have been involved in the issue for more than 10 years. It was first brought to my notice by Tom Brown, a constituent, who came to me with a similar case. A highly respected individual in the community was suddenly accused by the Post Office of stealing £86,000 because of the Horizon system. He spent two years of hell, and when he went to go before a judge at Newcastle Crown court, he arrived at the door and was told by the Post Office that it was not pursuing the case. In that time, he would have gone bankrupt and paid £86,000 back to the Post Office. In the 10 years in which I have been dealing with his case and many other cases, the culture described by the right hon. Gentleman is spot on. It is arrogant and dismissive. There is a cover-up.

We are now into a scheme that needs to be abolished. It is designed to put the onus back on the individual postmaster and postmistress and to reduce the liability of the Post Office. The scheme was open for only three months in 2020, and if someone did not get their claim in by then, they could not get a claim at all, so that was designed to reduce the numbers and reduce liability. The Post Office has no idea. In its accounts, it budgeted for £35 million of compensation. The figure is now estimated to be more than £300 million.

The scheme also excludes the 555 people, including my constituent, Tom Brown, who took action against the Post Office. We got to the truth only when the case went to court. The Government used £100 million of public money to try to stop the case going forward. They had to settle with the claimants because they ran out of money. There was a tsunami of money from the Post Office. I welcome today’s written ministerial statement about those who were convicted and who can be included in the compensation scheme. However, the scheme needs to be abolished. It should be put to one side. We need a comprehensive scheme outside the Post Office. The Government will have to put in place a scheme for everybody, including the people they have already put forward and including the 555 who took the class action. Without their taking that action, we would not have discovered the lies, deceit and cover-up by the Post Office. I am sorry, I do not accept the Government washing their hands of this and saying that the Post Office is at arm’s length from the Government. They had an active shareholder on that board who did nothing to stop the scandal. I call for the scheme to be scrapped and a comprehensive scheme to be put in place that covers everyone to be compensated. Yes, it might cost hundreds of millions of pounds, but that is because it was not the postmistresses and postmasters’ fault. It was the fault of the Government and the Post Office.

GKN Automotive Plant: Birmingham

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Westminster Hall

[Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements in Westminster Hall. Timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will be suspensions between debates, which is slightly unusual. I remind Members participating physically and virtually that they must arrive for the start of a debate in Westminster Hall and are expected to remain for the entire debate. I must remind Members participating virtually that they are visible at all times, both to one another and to us in the Boothroyd Room; that is something to be aware of when you are sitting in front of your screen. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks’ email address. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and before they leave the room; you will see that there are hand wipes in front of you. I remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

Thank you for accommodating me and allowing me to be here in person, Dame Angela. I congratulate my good and hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) on securing this debate, which is not just important for Birmingham and the west midlands, but is of national significance because of the nature of the issues. I declare an interest as a long-standing member of Unite the union and chair of the Unite group in Parliament.

My hon. Friend has described what Melrose is doing to the GKN automotive factory in Birmingham. Frankly, it is an absolute disgrace. Out of deference to the procedures of the House, we do not curse and use foul language, but what is happening to the loyal workforce at this plant is an outrage. Over 500 jobs—my hon. Friend says 519—many thousands of jobs in the supply chain, and more than 50 years of proud history at the site are in the firing line. If this plant is allowed to close, and I am looking here at the Minister—we do not want just warm words but definite actions—it will be a nail in the coffin of UK manufacturing. We look to the Government for a response and a reaction.

GKN is a living, breathing symbol of a great British company. It has been building critical equipment, including for the defence of the realm, for over 260 years. My hon. Friend mentioned that it was involved in building Spitfires, and cannon balls that were used by the British artillery at Waterloo. Surely that is a history worth defending and a future worth saving.

I express solidarity with Steve Turner, assistant general secretary of Unite, who has been involved in plans to save jobs at the plant and Frank Duffy, Unite convener there, and his members, who have fought valiantly and continue to fight. Despite company promises to build a “British manufacturing powerhouse”, many Members of Parliament, including my hon. Friend and others present, and the trade unions, warned what would happen when Melrose launched its hostile takeover bid three years ago. Sadly, despite the comments, made I am sure in good faith, of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), those predictions have proved correct. I do not accept the argument that the plant is not viable. Melrose’s directors have been heavily criticised for excessive bonuses and profits. I will not quote a figure, but it is eye-watering.

It strikes me that there are some parallels with what has happened with the European super league, where an elite wring out value from an organisation—in this case, GKN. As we have heard, Melrose is already closing one factory in Birmingham, and now it wants to throw the other, on Chester Road, on the scrapheap with the intention of stripping it of its assets, because that is what asset strippers do: they buy companies cheap, break them up and sell them off, and they throw away what is left. I had some experience of it in the north-east many years ago with Helical Bar, a property company that bought up the capital assets that were sold off cheap from Aycliffe and Peterlee Development Corporation, then sold them off, making a huge profit for Michael Slade, the chief executive, and walked away without adding any value to the community or to the local economy.

The more than 500 skilled engineering jobs under threat at Birmingham are good jobs and part of the backbone of British manufacturing, but apparently they are not valuable to Melrose, because the company just wants to throw them away. However, these jobs are valuable to the workforce themselves—of course they are. They are valuable to the families who the workers support. They are valuable to the communities in the west midlands where the people live. They are valuable to the trade union. They are also valuable to the economy, to us here in this room; well, I hope they are. The question I put to the Minister is: if they are valuable, what are Ministers going to do to save them? What are they going to do to save British manufacturing, especially the automotive sector, as we shift rapidly to electric vehicles? I look forward to the Minister’s comments later in the debate.

The key issue with the GKN plant in Birmingham is whether it is viable, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington touched on. Unite the union has worked through the figures and looked at the numbers with independent experts that have been recognised by the company. They looked at whether it is viable, and at Melrose’s claim that, in fact, the plant has been losing money for several years. According to the information I have seen, this seems to be a case of what we would call creative accounting. It is called transfer pricing, where large companies that operate over several sites, often based in different countries, pretend the different sites are buying and selling from each other while building a product. In that way, they can say that some sites are theoretically profitable while others are loss-making, depending on what prices the company chooses to charge itself or elements of itself.

It seems to me that that is a fiction, and it is often used to reduce the tax paid in some countries because the profits made in another are higher. In reality, all the sites contribute to the value of the product made, and that is certainly the case with GKN in Birmingham. Melrose bosses think they can just get the work done cheaper in Poland and France, an appalling attitude for a company that promised the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee only a short time ago to build a British manufacturing powerhouse.

Unite has developed an alternative plan with the independent experts, and they make it clear that it is possible not only to make a profit on the site but to increase capacity by 50% and deliver annual savings of up to £8 million for GKN. Most importantly, this will save those valuable jobs and create more jobs for the future, but it seems that Melrose is only interested in short-term profit. We need the Government to make Melrose see that this is an offer it cannot refuse. That will mean support for the rapid shift to electric vehicles, which the factory is perfectly placed to take advantage of, as my hon. Friend said.

GKN Birmingham Chester Road produces Driveline components, including side shafts and prop shafts; small, specialist components. According to Unite, the e-axle, known as the eDrive, which is an existing GKN technology that was developed at its UK innovation centre, is a key product that can secure the Birmingham site’s long-term future, as well as the UK’s critical manufacturing capability. The demand for that product will only increase as we move towards full electrification, but Melrose must get serious about supporting its manufacturing base, and so must the Government.

When the company’s chief executive, Simon Peckham, gave evidence to the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee in February, he put the blame squarely on electric vehicles. He claimed that

“electrification is a threat to jobs as well as an opportunity to grow jobs.”

He also said:

“For GKN Automotive as a whole, electrification is an opportunity; unfortunately, for”

the Birmingham plant “it is not.” We do not accept that. The workers do not accept that, and nor does Unite.

The question is: do the Government accept that electrification will not be an opportunity for those highly skilled engineers, who make parts for top brands, including Jaguar Land Rover, Toyota, and Nissan in my part of the country? Are Ministers, who promised a British manufacturing powerhouse, prepared to let Melrose throw those jobs on the scrapheap? Are they giving up on those skilled workers at a time when they need support most of all? I hope the Minister will let us know when she responds to the debate, because we will not give up on them, and neither will their union. We will fight all the way, because we are fighting for the future of British manufacturing. It is a fight that we are determined to win, even if it takes strikes, protests and other ways to disrupt Melrose’s disgraceful plans. The battle for the Birmingham plant has only just begun.

It would be useful if the Minister let us know which side she is on. Is she on the side of the skilled, productive workers, or that of the short-term, greedy bosses? I imagine the whole country would like to know the answer, especially as we go into the local elections in May. I hope the Minister will tell us.

[Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)]

Before calling Rachel Hopkins, I remind Members who are physically present to put their masks on when they sit down.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) [V]]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Angela. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) on securing this extremely important debate. I am a Unite trade union member, and all of us in the Labour and trade union movement fully understand, particularly on International Workers’ Memorial Day, that an injury to one is an injury to all. That is why I am speaking in this debate as the Member of Parliament for Luton South, a constituency in my home town of Luton that has a long history of car and van manufacturing at the Vauxhall plant, which provides skilled jobs. I know how important those jobs are to our local economy and our communities’ livelihoods, so I send my solidarity to the workers at GKN in Erdington, whose jobs are at risk.

Manufacturing matters, and GKN is a vital strategic supplier to our automotive sector. It has the capacity to transition to new products for electric vehicles, as we have heard. That green capacity will be essential in the future for plants such as Vauxhall in Luton South. Since acquiring GKN, Melrose has sought to offshore manufacturing and transfer—

[Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)]

Order. Rachel, could you hold your microphone a bit closer? That is much easier for us to hear. When it is dangling, you are going very quiet. If you hold it closer to your mouth, that would be fantastic, because we will hear you much better.

[Rachel Hopkins]

I am very sorry, Dame Angela. Apologies for that.

Since acquiring GKN, Melrose has sought to offshore manufacturing and transfer successfully won contracts for UK work away from Birmingham. We know that it wants to offshore production to Poland and France to maximise profit, showing a total disregard for its loyal workers and the surrounding community. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington said, the GKN plant is based in an area where unemployment stands at 12.5%, which is significantly higher than the national average. The loss of 519 skilled jobs at the plant in the middle of a pandemic would devastate the community.

The closure of GKN would also have a hugely damaging impact on our domestic automotive supply chain. As we have seen with other forms of manufacturing during the pandemic, it is important to have a robust domestic supply chain. That is increasingly essential for the automotive sector, due to the new rules of origin requirements with regard to tariffs.

It is economically illiterate of the Government to allow the closure of GKN in Birmingham and the offshoring of production. The loss of GKN—a critically important tier 1 supply chain manufacturer—will have a knock-on impact across our automotive sector. What I and others here find astounding is Melrose’s lack of discussion with the workers’ trade union, Unite. Unite’s two-stage plan for the GKN plant, formed through work with shop stewards and independent experts, outlines how productivity can be improved with additional savings, followed by a plan to produce eDrive components for electric vehicles. Estimates suggest that would save more than Melrose’s proposal to close the plant in Erdington, as independent experts believe Melrose has underestimated the cost of relocation.

We need companies such as GKN with eDrive technology based in the UK to help facilitate the sector’s green transition. Demand is increasing for electric vehicle components, with global electric and plug-in hybrid cells expected to rise to 40 million vehicles annually by 2025. Expansion of the eDrive could secure the site’s long-term future and play a pivotal role in the UK industry’s critical manufacturing capability. The eDrive equates to 15% of electric vehicles, comparable to next generation batteries. By 2030, that is expected to increase and make a significant contribution for exporters to meet new rule-of-origin thresholds. The room for GKN’s expansion is there, ready and waiting, and may not only save jobs, but could create them in the long run.

If Melrose intends to push on with this decision, it poses a critical temperature test of the Government’s industrial strategy, because what is levelling up if it is not protecting, promoting and creating skilled, well-paid jobs that are rooted in communities across the UK? If the Government allow GKN Birmingham to close, it will undermine and further expose the UK automotive industry’s supply chain to risk.

The Government must intervene and work with all parties to prevent the closure of GKN in Birmingham, and preventing the closure must be part of a wide interventionist green strategy to transition the automotive sector, ahead of the 2030 ban on new petrol and diesel vehicles. We need an electric vehicle revolution that backs manufacturers and creates new jobs. The Government must lead this step change by creating new gigafactories, protecting and enhancing the domestic supply chain and making electric vehicle ownership affordable. The UK has the skills and capacity to be a global leader in the electric vehicle market, but the Government must create the foundations for the sector to flourish.

UK Steel Production: Greensill Capital

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 25th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I commend my hon. Friend’s work in representing COP26 and doing a great job in engaging with businesses on COP26. I assure him that green steel is very much at the front of our minds. It is something that I am very focused on. We have mentioned the Steel Council, and I have also mentioned a number of times the industrial decarbonisation strategy. Green steel is absolutely the way forward, and I look forward to working with him to see how we can make progress in this vitally important area.

[Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab) [V]]

Can the Secretary of State explain why Greensill—an unregulated shadow bank with close links to the Conservative party—was given access to the coronavirus large business interruption loan scheme, which is backed by 80% taxpayer guarantees? Following its collapse, which puts the future of Liberty Steel and thousands of jobs at risk, will the Minister practise the transparency he has just been talking about and tell the House how many millions of pounds of losses incurred will end up being dumped on the UK taxpayer?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The right hon. Lady will know that I cannot possibly comment on that, because it is part of an ongoing series of discussions. We do not really know the full extent of the impact of Greensill’s collapse on the British economy. We are looking into it very closely and looking at which companies have been affected, but until that further investigation we cannot possibly comment on the extent of the liability.

Oral Answers to Questions

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Tuesday 9th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

Wales’s promising clean tech entrepreneurs are urged to bid for the latest £11 million of Government funding, which is going to support between 15 and 20 projects, with successful bidders receiving up to £1 million each. The funding available through the energy entrepreneurs fund is open to all eligible companies across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and I look forward to seeing their submissions.

[Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

What recent steps he has taken with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to improve the enforcement of workplace health and safety laws.

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

The Government have invested an additional £14 million to support the Health and Safety Executive’s enforcement of health and safety laws. My Department has provided guidance on safer working in response to covid-19 that helps to inform the HSE’s monitoring and enforcement activities. This guidance is kept under continuous review.

[Dame Angela Eagle [V]]

Given the emergence of new, more transmissible strains of covid-19, why has the Minister not updated his Department’s workplace guidance with stronger recommendations on ventilation, personal protective equipment and the increasing requirement for effective surface disinfectants to be used, so that everyone can be kept safe at work?

[Paul Scully]

The HSE and Public Health England continue to look at the guidance, and they believe that it is robust enough for the new variants. It has been very clear, right from the outset, that ventilation is an important weapon in tackling covid.

Leaving the EU: Workers’ Rights

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. To give some further cheery news, 80% of jobs created since 2010 are full-time jobs. The introduction of the national living wage delivered the fastest pay rise in at least 20 years for the lowest earners. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) might like to look at the facts rather than listen to the rhetoric coming from Opposition Members. If people want good work, good workers’ rights and decent wages, they should stick with the Conservatives.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Asking people to trust the Conservative party is a bit like asking them to trust Dracula with the blood bank. We know what its record is.

Will the right hon. Lady talk about enforcement? We can have all the rights we like on paper, but this Government and their predecessors have slashed enforcement to the bone, which has meant that an awful lot of the so-called rights that people have at work are theoretical and do not exist in practice.

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Lady knows that that is simply not the case. Since 2015 the Government have doubled the budget for enforcement on compliance with the minimum wage. The enforcement activity of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has meant that 200,000 workers could access nearly £25 million in national minimum wage arrears in 2018-19. The employment agency standards inspectorate has received a 50% increase in frontline inspectors. We are investing more than £1 billion in reforming the Courts and Tribunals Service. The hon. Lady is asserting non-facts; I am giving her the facts and she should listen to them.

Draft Employment Rights (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Draft Employment Rights (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Draft Employment Rights (Amendment) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2018 Draft Employment Rights (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2018

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Wednesday 13th February 2019 General Committees

[Kelly Tolhurst]

If the hon. Gentleman allows me to make some progress, I will come to that point. We should aim not to sensationalise the issue, but to provide clear answers to the public. It is our responsibility to be the guide during this unprecedented time.

The Committee will be aware of the programme of reforms that the Government are already implementing to strengthen workers’ rights and we are delivering on our commitments through the “Good Work Plan”. We do not need to be in the EU to have strong workers’ rights or to enhance them in the future. Indeed, we will continue to deliver the good work reforms after the UK has left the EU.

Far from being content with EU minimum standards, the UK has gone beyond them in a number of areas. Our maternity entitlements are nearly three times greater than the EU standard. In the UK, we offer 52 weeks of maternity leave, of which 39 weeks are with pay; the EU requires only 14 weeks of paid leave. We give fathers and partners the statutory right to paternity leave and pay—an entitlement that the EU is only now starting to consider. We allow eligible parents to share paid leave and thus caring responsibilities in the first year following birth or adoption; the EU does not provide for that right. We have given all employees with 26 weeks’ qualifying service a statutory right to request flexible working; EU law allows workers to make a request only if they are returning from parental leave. One of the EU’s own agencies, Eurofound, ranks the UK as the second best country in the EU for workplace well- being, behind only Sweden, and the best for workplace performance.

In our future outside the EU, the political declaration on our future relationship states that we will build on the withdrawal agreement commitment not to reduce our shared standards or regress from existing EU legislation. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in the House yesterday, we are prepared to commit to asking Parliament whether it wishes to follow suit whenever the EU changes its employment standards. I hope that that provides assurance to the Committee that the Government are absolutely committed to protecting and enhancing workers’ rights.

The statutory instruments are an important and necessary part of the work to protect rights in the event that we leave the EU without a deal. Of course I hope that the regulations will not need to come into effect, and that an agreement can be reached with the EU so they can be revoked.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Will the Minister explain why the Government initially thought that the regulations should be subject to the negative procedure and not debated at all? We are obviously pleased that the Government changed their mind when the European Statutory Instruments Committee asked for the change.

[Kelly Tolhurst]

The statutory instruments that were laid subject to the negative procedure, which was changed by that Committee, relate particularly to Northern Ireland. They were upgraded to be debated, so we have the opportunity to debate all four sets of regulations in Committee today.

Although I hope that the regulations will not need to come into effect, because I hope that we can reach an agreement, in the event of no deal it will be vital that they are enacted. Failure to pass these largely technical regulations would result in uncertainty about workers’ rights and employers’ obligations, which could lead to disruption for business and citizens and an increased risk of litigation, which is in no one’s interest.

Against that background, I will explain one set of provisions about which hon. Members may have concerns. The Employment Rights (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 make changes to the rules on European works councils. Businesses and trade unions in the UK value the opportunity for employee engagement and consultation that the councils provide, and the Government recognise and encourage those benefits. However, withdrawing from the EU without a deal will mean that the UK is no longer covered by EU rules on European works councils.

In that scenario, it would be for the EU to give UK workers the right to be represented on the councils. It is an unavoidable and unfortunate truth that there is no way for the UK unilaterally to ensure that workers in this country retain that right without a deal. There is also no way to replicate the European works council system only in the UK, as their purpose is to enable cross-border engagement. That requires the same rules in all countries, which requires a withdrawal agreement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have been very clear that we will not roll back workers’ rights. In fact, we have made an express commitment to go further. As I outlined, we already go further than Europe in many ways. We have been feeding into the development of EU thinking on some of these policies, as some of the work we have been doing in the UK is particularly good. We are determined to continue on our path. Our ambition is that the UK continues to be a great place to work, with those protections continuing to be afforded to the people employed in this country.

Our domestic regime for employee engagement and consultation will remain in place, and we will encourage businesses to continue to allow UK workers to be represented on a voluntary basis in European works councils. We are retaining as many of the existing rules as we can to enable that. All existing protections for workers and for their representatives on European works councils—even those there voluntarily—will be maintained. Approving the draft regulations is the only way to ensure that workers involved in European works councils are protected if there is no deal. They deliver on our commitments.

Another area I am aware that Members may be concerned about is the changes being made to the TUPE regulations. In a dynamic economy such as the UK’s, there will inevitably be takeovers and mergers and contracts changing hands, which is good for the prosperity of our country; the best companies outdo the worst. We recognise that that must be combined with strong protection for the workers in those companies, for whom a change of employer may be a stressful and difficult experience. TUPE regulations are central to protecting workers from suffering as a result of being transferred.

The draft regulations are an important part of EU-derived employment law, which we have committed to retain. In the UK, we have gone further than required under EU laws and we have extended these important protections to other groups of workers. Not only will we retain the elements from the EU, but we commit to retaining the gold-plating. Only by making the changes contained in the draft Employment Rights (Amendment) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations can we make sure that workers remain entitled to these protections. The changes are necessary to ensure that the Government retain our current powers to extend the protection provided by TUPE to other groups of workers. These powers have been used to protect workers where there is a change of service provider that is not also a business transfer—a situation that would not be covered by EU rules. That crucial gap can include situations where a business outsources or contracts out a service. The changes are technical, but it is important that I set Members’ minds at ease.

The current powers are defined with reference to the EU directive, which applies to the UK as a member state. When the UK is no longer a member state, if there is no deal the reference will no longer make sense, so the reference must be changed so that it does not rely on EU law. Without that change, the Government could not use the power or use this tool for protecting workers in future.

I have highlighted these areas as the other changes in the SIs are purely technical, made to reflect the fact that the UK will no longer be a member of the EU. I assure the Committee that the amendments made through these SIs deliver on our workers’ rights commitments, thus providing clarity to employers, workers and businesses, and confidence that the Government are prepared for a no-deal scenario.

[Ms Eagle]

Can the Minister explain to the Committee why the Government felt it necessary to make some of these changes retrospective and bring them into being before we have left the European Union, even though these SIs are meant to be a series of so-called no-deal SIs?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

In the event of a deal situation, the SIs that have been laid and passed can be revoked, referred, or brought to a following end-date, so there is a range of options on the table in a deal situation. We have been passing the no-deal SIs, particularly those before the Committee today, to make sure that we are ready if we leave the European Union on 29 March without a deal. It is imperative that we have regulations in place to ensure that we have a functioning statute book and are able to operate in a correct way.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Minister for giving way again. Some of the provisions in these statutory instruments actually came into force on 1 December 2018. Why is that?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I do not know the particular SIs that the hon. Lady is referring to, so I cannot comment on them. All I am commenting on are the ones that I have in front of me today.

[Ms Eagle]

Some provisions in the regulations that are scheduled to come into force came into force at the beginning of last December. Will the Minister explain why it was felt necessary to bring them into force well ahead of our leaving the European Union and then apply them retrospectively, which is not a good principle of law?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

As I have already outlined to the hon. Lady, the SIs that she is–

[Ms Eagle]

The notes are coming. [Laughter.]

[Kelly Tolhurst]

That may be, but the measures that she is referring to have not been highlighted. I am not aware of the ones that the hon. Lady is referring to. I am referring to the SI that is in front of me today.

[Ms Eagle]

If the Minister cannot give us the explanation I seek now, will she undertake to provide it in writing to all members of the Committee?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I will happily write to the Committee if the hon. Lady outlines to me the SIs that became active on 1 December 2018, so that I can give her and the rest of the Committee further clarification on that.

It would be unacceptable not to provide clarity to businesses and workers, and I encourage the Committee to approve the instruments. I commend them to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Evans. We need to start from the moment the Government tried to sneak these measures through using the negative procedure when they tabled the regulations on 31 October 2018. I am astonished that that great bastion of democracy, the House of Lords, was the place to correct the Government’s disregard. If it were not for the concerns put by the Trades Union Congress, that is exactly what the Government would have done.

[Ms Eagle]

It is true that the House of Lords spotted that the regulations would better fit the affirmative procedure but, to cheer up the hon. Gentleman, so did the European Statutory Instruments Committee of the House of Commons, of which I am a member, when we had a look at the regulations. We also suggested to the Government that the regulations are not minor and should certainly be subject to fuller debate.

[Chris Stephens]

I am grateful for that clarification. I was previously a member of that Committee—I thought the Whip was punishing me for something—and that shows the Committee system plays an important role. The Minister needs to answer why these statutory instruments have different dates for different parts. For instance, 1 December has been mentioned; some mention exit day and some mention other dates. The Minister should clarify that. If there is no clarity on that matter, I do not see how the Committee can agree to these statutory instruments.

Although the Government have said that they want to keep workers’ rights, the clear concern is that what is happening in reality is a loss of guaranteed upgrades. A classic example of that, which I mentioned in my question to the Minister, is the regulations currently being negotiated between the European Parliament and the European Commission in respect of workers in the gig economy and working parents.

It is clear that, if there is no deal, UK workers will no longer be entitled to request the establishment of a European works council. That is important in many areas of the country. In the bus sector, for example, companies such as Arriva have workers across the European Union and in the UK. Arriva ran services in the west of Scotland before it pulled out, and its workers had to be offered jobs elsewhere in the European Union to continue their work.

The fact that UK workers will no longer have the opportunity to request the establishment of a European works council, in order to participate in discussions about company-wide issues with European colleagues, is very serious. Protections are clearly being weakened, because European law and the courts provide a protective backstop—I believe that phrase is in vogue—against EU workers’ rights law being weakened by future UK Governments.

That brings us to the issue of trust. The Prime Minister’s statement yesterday, and her answer to my question about what happens here if the European Union strengthens workers’ rights, mirrors what she said in her letter to the Leader of the Opposition: that there would be a vote in Parliament, and that the Government would not advocate matching those terms.

I asked that question of the Minister today, and I feel she did not guarantee that the Government would match those terms. Somehow it would be put to a vote, and workers across the UK would have to trust the Conservative party to enhance their workers’ rights— I do not think so.

I am sure the hon. Member for Wallasey will agree that those of us who were involved with the anti-trade union Act saw the real face of conservatism when it comes to workers’ rights and protections, and we remember the statements made in relation to workers’ rights by the great advocates of the leave campaign. The Secretary of State for International Trade said:

“It is too difficult to hire and fire”

people in the United Kingdom.

The reality is that these statutory instruments are badly drafted and offer no scope to keep United Kingdom law in line with EU law. As such, I will be voting against them.

[Ms Eagle]

It is a joy to see you in the Chair, Mr Evans. I begin by thanking the Minister for agreeing with the recommendation of both the House of Lords and the European Statutory Instruments Committee, which considered this collection of eight different measures and asked the Government to think again about using the negative procedure. If the Government had their way, there would have been no debate whatsoever about any of these important matters.

The Minister told the Committee that these are just technical amendments, that there is nothing to see here and that we should all be happy not to be bothered by a series of tiny law changes. However, those of us who have been in the House a long time and know all about the general approach of the Conservative party to workers’ rights legislation want to check it out anyway. A little later, I will outline some things that it would be helpful for the Minister to clarify in her response.

Let us look at what these two sets of statutory instruments do. The first is for Northern Ireland, which of course does not have a functioning Executive at the moment, and therefore legislation is effectively being made for it without its direct say-so. The second set applies to the rest of the country: England, Wales and Scotland.

The European Statutory Instruments Committee noted that the regulations amend four employment Acts to remove the power of the Secretary of State to make secondary legislation implementing EU employment directives. That is good, one might think, but that is four employment Acts changed by this collection of legislation. The Committee also felt there is a policy vacuum in what will replace the powers being taken away.

Section 79(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is about the parental leave framework, and it will be repealed. Section 19(4) of the Employment Relations Act 1999 is about part-time work, and that will be repealed. Section 45(4) of the Employment Act 2002 is about conditions of employment, framework agreements on fixed-term work and the application of terms and conditions of employment and matters that arise because of the UK’s obligations under that particular EU directive. That will be repealed. Section 42(5) of the Employment Relations Act 2004, which has provisions about information and consultation, will be repealed.

The Government could have done other things. They could have tweaked rather than repealed all those things. Why have they decided to repeal? Why have they decided to tweak in other ways, such as by saying “TUPE-like”, rather than just cutting and pasting existing requirements and protections into UK law? I am alarmed that the Government felt they could bring forward this legislation without the Minister coming here to give us a lot more information about the Government’s approach.

It is about not only putting the same rights into UK law, but saying a bit about the loss of updating rights for the future. What, for example, is the Government’s intention, as the hon. Member for Glasgow South West has noted, on shadowing future rights that the EU may decide to grant its citizens, particularly in the gig economy? We know from experience that this Government have done little in the nearly nine years they have been in existence to aid and assist those who work in the gig economy. That has been left to unions such as the GMB, which has pursued Hermes through the courts to get those who work there the employment rights they should have been granted at the outset.

We know that other unions are pursuing employers such as Pimlico Plumbers and various other non-gig employers that are attempting to say that they do not have anyone working directly for them. Somehow all those people are self-employed and therefore have to pay for their own pensions and holiday pay. They do not get any sick pay or any other access to the basic protections we would expect every worker in the UK to get as a matter of common decency. Again, the Government have stood by and done absolutely nothing to protect those rights. They have made clucking noises about it and released the odd press release about how they are very concerned, but they have not done anything to make those rights accessible and available.

In fact, the coalition Government introduced employment tribunal fees, which effectively made it impossible for those with issues to enforce the rights they thought they had under UK law. They effectively dismantled what was left of the employment tribunal system by starving it of resources, so waiting lists were massively long and the only people who could really afford to get their statutory rights enforced at all were trade unions members who could afford to wait for a very long time and those who could risk their own money simply to try to get their basic rights enforced in the UK.

Of course, the Government also introduced the Beecroft report, which basically said that all maternity rights, and most employment rights, are a burden on business and ought to be abolished, and that everyone should fend for themselves.

It is very hard, looking at these transitions of EU regulations into the UK statute book, to take the reassurance of anyone from a Government with such a record that we can rely on the blandishments they might issue on the Floor of the House. We want to see proper law, proper debates and proper employment rights. We also wish to see an enhanced capacity for those organisations to allow workers to access their rights, thereby making those rights a reality.

So we come again to the Government’s record in that respect. The Trade Union Act 2016 made it virtually impossible for trade unions to operate without being caused enormous organisational problems and expense, which is a particularly vindictive approach to organisations that were created to ensure that workers can access their rights.

Many Conservative Members have said that, somehow, there will be freedom when we leave the European Union, but I could be forgiven for thinking that that will inaugurate a race to the bottom on rights. There will be competition in how exploitative we can be to those who work in what is already—let me put it this way—a very flexible economy, in which many people now struggle even to achieve basic pay, conditions, pension entitlement, sick pay, holiday pay and the rest of it.

We will look at the colour of the legislation, but I note that the Minister initially tried to get these statutory instruments through without even having a debate. Labour Members continue to look very closely, with a great deal of scepticism, at what is actually happening here, and whether there will be another attempt further to ratchet down the rights that people enjoy in our labour market.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I gently say that those of us on the Government Benches have listened to these allegations that we all have it in for workers’ rights, but nothing could be further from the truth. We are actually very proud of our track record on workers’ rights, and we stand by it. Although we may be silently listening to this long line of allegations, it does not mean that those allegations are true. We can stand proudly on our track record. I thought I would put that on the record, because otherwise a person listening in from outside this place might go away with the wrong impression. At the end of the day, actions speak louder than words.

[Ms Eagle]

I am glad to have provoked the hon. Gentleman to get to his feet and make that fairly fantastical claim, when 60% of people in poverty are actually in work, and when we have seen a huge increase in the number of people on zero-hours contracts, or on contracts so flexible that they cannot put food on the table at the end of the week.

[Chris Stephens]

Does the hon. Lady agree that insecure work has exploded in the past nine years and that the reason we are so suspicious is that those who advocate leaving the European Union kept using the deregulation of workers’ rights as a vehicle to enhance their cause?

[Ms Eagle]

Absolutely. We all remember the horror with which the Thatcherites perceived the appearance of Monsieur Delors at the Trades Union Congress, when he actually said that there was a social justice aspect to the European Union and that, of course, if there is a free market in the EU, there also has to be cross-border workers’ rights. Anyone who looks at the record will know exactly what to expect from the deregulators who form the core of the Brextremist Members of the Government party. They are positively salivating at the chance to cut further people’s entitlements in the labour market. They have always hated the idea that there was a floor below which they could not take workers’ rights, even when they were in government.

[Mr Baron]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ms Eagle]

I am glad to have provoked the hon. Gentleman again.

[Mr Baron]

The hon. Lady talks about social rights, yet she tends to turn a blind eye to the fact that within the EU—certainly on the continent—unemployment is nearly twice the level that it is here, and youth employment in certain countries runs up to 50% and above, which is an absolute disgrace. That is not social justice. There has to be an element of balance in the hon. Lady’s remarks if she is comparing our track record with that of the EU on the continent.

[Ms Eagle]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting comment. He looks at countries such as Spain, which has had a particularly difficult time with youth employment, and southern countries, but does not mention Germany or Sweden or any of the other places—[Interruption.] Let me finish the sentence. He does not remember any of the other places where there is a much less exploitative approach to skills, training, work and opportunities, and where they manage to create a much more productive economy, with a much happier workforce, which does not feel that it is being exploited.

[Mr Baron]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ms Eagle]

Once more. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should make his own speech.

[Mr Baron]

I am afraid the hon. Lady was being selective again. I quoted the EU average unemployment rate, which includes Germany and France and the northern countries. Even taking them into account, the EU unemployment rate is twice the level of that in this country. When the hon. Lady talks of productivity, she has got to be careful. If we are employing a greater share of the workforce, productivity will go down. Halving the unemployment rate is often done among low-skilled workers.

[The Chair]

Order. Before the hon. Lady responds, I would just say that the discussion is going a bit wide of the mark. We could turn this into a general debate, but that is not what we are here for. If we could focus on the statutory instruments, that would be really useful.

[Ms Eagle]

Thank you, Mr Evans, and I am more than happy to abide by the obvious correctness of your ruling. I will merely say in passing that the issue is about taking away workers’ employment rights and making them harder to access and easier to exploit, which suggests that the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay takes a very different view from Labour Members of what represents a good productive workforce. A proper look at the evidence indicates as much.

[Rushanara Ali]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay and a number of his colleagues seem to act in an evidence-free zone, even when the facts speak for themselves regarding the Government’s legislative changes to employment rights and reducing people’s rights? They opposed the national minimum wage when Labour introduced it and a whole series of improved labour standards regulations. Just because he says it, albeit in a well-mannered way, does not make it true. He should face up to the facts, which are that his Government have undermined labour standards. This is another attempt at a race to the bottom and labour market exploitation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Eagle]

Mr Evans, you know me very well and you know that I am never tempted at all to get away from being in order, which I take extremely seriously.

I have a couple of other points. We have to remember that for slightly more than 40 years the UK, as a member of the European Union, has seen progress in and directives on employment law, as well as protections for a range of rights, including health and safety, equality, equal treatment and anti-discrimination. Those protections have been considered a floor below which no Government of this country have been able to go, despite the wishes of certain current Government Members.

The Minister asks us to trust her—and trust the Prime Minister’s warm words but complete lack of action—that the Government do not wish to go below that floor, yet many of the Brextremists in the Conservative party have openly indicated otherwise. The Beecroft report would have crashed through the floor into the basement and further down. We know about the treatment of trade unions and organisations whose raison d’être is to protect workers. The lack of legislation or progress on any new forms of employment is simply another indication that, at the very least, the Government do not prioritise this area, but I suspect that the situation is worse than that.

If we are to agree to instruments such as the draft regulations, we will need much better suggestions from the Minister than, “Trust me.” We want much more evidence that there will be no loss to updating rights and that, as the TUC suggests, further rights agreed by the European Union will be more than matched in this country. We also need to know much more—I hope the Minister will cover this in her reply—about why it was thought acceptable for some pieces of legislation to be debated retrospectively after coming into being.

I hope that the Minister’s reply will give us some satisfaction that we can trust in, so that we can move forward. However, I have to say that I think it quite right for the Opposition to vote against the draft regulations until we see much more evidence that the Government will deliver what they say they want to deliver, and that they will act. To date, they have simply talked.

Draft European Research Infrastructure Consortium (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Monday 3rd December 2018 General Committees

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair for this Committee, Mr Sharma.

I am a member of the House of Commons European Statutory Instruments Committee, which decided to refer this SI back to the Government and ask them to have an affirmative debate on it—perhaps that is why I am here. We did not do that because we wanted to cause trouble; rather, we felt that the structure the SI amends is so important to the UK that we needed some explanation on the record from the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth, which would say a little bit about future policy. She has begun to do that, but I wanted to ask her a few questions about how she and her Department see our ongoing approach to ERICs evolving over time.

The Minister rightly says that two ERICs are hosted in this country. What effect, if any, will our leaving the European Union have on the size and workload of the ERICs that are hosted here? Might there be moves to take them somewhere else as a result of our move from EU member status to non-EU member status? Will she comment publicly on whether our move from EU member status to third-country status will have any implications for how the ERIC process works, especially with respect to the setting up of new ERICs? Do she and her Department have in mind policy changes, administrative changes or changes of approach, rather than a technical amendment, which is important but not the whole story, to ensure that, in the move from EU member status to third-country status in the ERIC structure, we shore up our involvement?

Does the Minister feel that, as a third country, there is any possibility that we will host a new ERIC? Given that we do not have any idea of what our immigration policy will look like, as the White Paper on that has been delayed until after the meaningful vote in a couple of weeks’ time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central said, will the Minister indicate her Department’s approach to immigration policy? When I was campaigning for this country to remain in the EU, I went round a lot of universities and one of the main things I was told was that it would be catastrophic for research and being leaders in the field to have a narrow approach to immigration. In particular, there must be collaboration across borders. Those of us who have been involved in science policy know that having cross-border co-operation without barriers is key to keeping this country at the forefront of future policy, as knowledge becomes more and more specialised.

Will the Minister give us a few indications of her Department’s thoughts on these important issues, so we can set a policy context for the draft regulations? The issue is not that the regulations are not technical—they are—but that the context in which ERICs have operated in the past will now change. Will the Minister tell us a bit more about her thought process and her Department’s approach to how we deal with trying to ensure that our commitment to ERICs and our capacity to be involved and to have a leading role in new ERICs is projected effectively in the future in the new context?

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Perry]

The hon. Lady is right. It is why the proposed framework is to have as close as possible alignment on goods. I know she speaks to many universities and researchers, so she will know that we have an endemic problem with scale-up. What tends to happen is that the intellectual property is sold overseas before the commercialisation stage, and often the full commercialisation of projects and services is done by overseas companies, rather than the IP being held back in the UK—but I am digressing slightly. Forgive me, Mr Sharma.

I am going to address the migration points. I thank the hon. Member for Wallasey for her contributions to the European Statutory Instruments Committee. I know she has a lot of stuff going on with that, and these are important questions. Third countries cannot host ERICs, so there is a question about hosting versus participation. We host two ERICs and we are members of 12. This relates to our future negotiations, which are spelled out in the political declaration, but we have expressed a desire to continue to host. We hope that our special status as one of the world leaders—I cannot remember the patent numbers, but I believe we are up there with economies very much larger than ours—will allow us some special status for ERICs hosting. I believe that is part of the future negotiations.

[Ms Eagle]

Clearly it is worrying that third countries cannot host ERICs given that we are about to become a third country. Will the right hon. Lady indicate the sort of timescale and approach or process that will be in place for trying to negotiate ERIC 2 or whatever we want to call it?

[Claire Perry]

I will clarify my remarks to the hon. Lady in writing, but I believe that forms part of the negotiation we are having around Horizon 2020 and the entire science and innovation piece. It is part of the ongoing negotiations before we have a legal political declaration, if that makes sense, on a future framework, but I will clarify that in writing to her.

The hon. Lady asked me a very important point about migration. She is absolutely right. We have benefited enormously from the incredible talent of those who come to study in the UK and who often choose to remain and work here, and that absolutely must continue. She also asked me to say a little bit about policy. I do not want to pre-empt my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but essentially the policy position we have taken on migration is one that is entirely consistent with wanting to remain a world leader in science and innovation, and that has been stated in every public declaration. It has also been reiterated in every conversation we have.

Since January 2018, we have made a series of changes to the immigration rules to support that objective. For example, we have doubled the number of exceptional talent tier 1 visas for those qualifying in science, engineering, the humanities, medicine and so on. We have expanded the number of institutions that can sponsor international researchers, making it easier for research councils to bring in researchers for two years under a temporary work route. We have waived the resident labour market tests for supernumerary international researchers and members of sponsored research teams, and we have enabled faster switching between students visas, which are tier 4, and highly skilled tier 2 visas.

[Ms Eagle]

Obviously, any expansion and increased flexibility in that area will be very important to maintaining the UK’s leading place as a centre of scientific and research excellence. The Minister will probably be more familiar with this than I am, given her announcement regarding her personal arrangements, but when I went around the country meeting university researchers, what I heard about that concerned me more than anything else was the bureaucracy involved in granting visas. It takes much longer to get researchers from non-EU countries, as well as to get UK researchers into third countries. There is a bureaucracy issue, a timing issue and uncertainty about whether visas will be granted, which makes it much easier to organise research where there is free movement. That is the key issue that will bind us in the future if we do not get it right.

[Claire Perry]

As always, the hon, Lady makes an important point. She is right to distinguish between EU and global talent pools. Of course we want to attract the best and the brightest, wherever they come from, to work in the research and innovation sector, to be part of the industrial strategy, and to benefit the wider-UK economy.

Something that is not in my briefing notes but which the hon. Lady might find interesting is that one of the challenges, I am told, is that not enough home-grown students, particularly women, are emerging from our education system to be grown into those research and innovation positions. One might hope that, in time, we will see more acceleration of women and others through our education system, until we reach the point where we can fill more of those important research positions with UK talent. Regardless, we will still be open to the best and the brightest supporting our world-leading research and innovation base, and as we have been absolutely clear, both in public and in conversations across Government, we want to make sure that we work closely with the research sector to ensure that our visa arrangements are closely aligned to the sector’s needs. She makes an important point: it is not just the availability of research, but the ease of access. If we are bidding in a global talent pool, we must make sure that we have streamlined activities.