Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 30th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

In answer to the point from the hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana), negotiations need to continue, and they need to be fair to workers, but also to the taxpayer, which I will touch on in a second.

I reject the characterisation of this Bill by the Opposition, who clearly put their relationship with their unions over the interests of this country. This is not a radical Bill. What we are doing is not even new. We are taking reasonable, proportionate and balanced steps and aligning ourselves with many of our European partners, such as France and Spain.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Will the Minister accept that health and safety legislation in this country—to ensure guards on machinery, for example, to stop people’s hands being chopped off—was won because workers withdrew their labour? Does he understand that the ambulance workers and the nurses say that the very reason they are going on strike is to make sure that the service is safe? What he is saying at the Dispatch Box is complete rubbish.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s point. On nurses, we already have voluntary agreements, yet still they go on strike. The two things are consistent and are not mutually exclusive, but I recognise his point on the right to withdraw labour and bring attention to certain things, whether pay or other matters at work. It is absolutely right that people should be able to do that, but it should not prevent others going about their daily business and, indeed, feeling safe in terms of such things as healthcare.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Rayner]

The hon. Member should know, because of what has happened recently, that members and those who deliver critical public services have voluntary agreements to ensure that “life and limb” services are covered. The Bill, however, would restrict trade unions’ rights—which are already among the most restricted in the evolved democracies anywhere in the world—and further, goes from clapping nurses to sacking them. I hope he will vote with us tonight, at least on our amendments, if he does not want to see that happen.

The Secretary of State says we need this Bill to ensure safety levels on strike days, slandering the brave and hard-working ambulance workers as he goes and ignoring the “life and limb” deals that workers already agree. What about our constituents who cannot get an ambulance on any day, such is the crisis in the NHS? The Prime Minister admitted today the serious challenges facing the health service, and he is right, but it is his Government’s duty to protect the public’s access to essential services. The public are being put at risk every day due to this crisis of his own Government’s making.

Lives and livelihoods are already being lost. What about the commuters stopped from going to work because of the failing rail companies in the north? If the Prime Minister really cared, he would insist on fixing the broken public services we have today because of 13 years of Conservative failure. If they were confident of their case, why not agree to amendment 3 and provide us with reports on safety and service levels on any given day in transport, health, education and so on? Or are they just playing politics to distract from their 13 years of failure?

[Barry Gardiner]

Does my right hon. Friend understand that the Government are authorising employers to do what not even a court in this country can? Under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, no court can compel an employee to do any work or attend any place for the doing of any work, but after a notification to a union of the identity of workers to be requisitioned, the Bill requires the union to take reasonable steps to ensure that all members of the union identified in that work notice comply with it. Is that not absolutely turning the whole system on its head?

[Angela Rayner]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. These are the fundamental freedoms that underpin our democracy. Conservative Members should be very concerned about what the Government are trying to do; even Henry VIII would be spinning in his grave and absolutely astonished. If, as the Secretary of State and his Prime Minister say, the International Labour Organisation backs their plans, why did the ILO director general slam them? Why did President Biden’s Labour Secretary raise concerns too?

The Secretary of State says that threatening key workers and tearing up their protection against unfair dismissal is necessary. Nurses, teachers, ambulance workers, cleaners, border staff, firefighters, rail workers, bus drivers and nuclear decommissioners—all threatened with the sack in the midst of a recruitment and retention crisis. If that is not the purpose of the Bill, Government Members have the chance to join the Opposition in voting for amendment 1 and removing the sacking key workers clause. I am happy for the Minister to intervene to confirm that he is happy to accept that amendment, and then we can move on. No? Okay.

I also want to draw attention to the gaping holes in the Bill. The Secretary of State would have not just the power to set, impose and police minimum service levels, but to amend, repeal and revoke primary legislation—not just existing Acts but future Bills. We might pass a Bill only for a Minister to rewrite it by statutory instrument the next day. Why on earth do the Government need this power? Are they admitting that future legislation will be badly drafted, or are their motives more sinister? If those are the powers they seek, the least we can do is ensure that those regulations are made under the affirmative procedure.

If there is nothing to fear, the Government can show it by accepting amendments 100 to 102 tonight. Riddled with holes, the Bill gives sweeping powers to a power-hungry Secretary of State.

Why should minimum service levels apply to strikes that have already been balloted for? Would the Minister propose retrospective legislation in any other circumstances? Surely this would undermine attempts to find a resolution to the current disputes, prolonging the pain that the Government are hellbent on putting the public through. Or is it that the Government offer no solution because they caused the problem?

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner]

My right hon. Friend is being extremely generous in giving way. Does she accept that the only way a union can avoid the situation she has just talked about, where unfair dismissal protection is taken away from workers, is by ensuring that they become an instrument of coercion, of the state and of the employer? For 35 years in this country, legislation has provided that a trade union is prohibited by law from disciplining or expelling a member who refuses to take part in a strike. Under the Bill, the same trade union may be required to discipline or expel a member who does what their workmates and they themselves may have voted for—namely, to withdraw their labour. Jonathan Swift could not have made this up. Nothing in all Lilliput or Brobdingnag could come up with a more ludicrous situation.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Interventions, by their nature, should be short, not lengthy.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 16th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Laura Farris]

I am grateful to both SNP Members for their interventions. I am coming on to those points, so I will make a tiny bit of progress, if I may.

On the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), we already know that transport and education meet the ILO’s test, because the ILO told the United Kingdom that in its response to the challenge to the Trade Union Act 2016 submitted by the TUC in 2015. In its response, the ILO committee of experts—Members can look it up; it is on the website—said that in relation to transport and education

“recourse might be had to negotiated minimum standards for these sectors as appropriate”.

We also know that many comparable countries take a much tougher line than the Government are proposing. In the United States, to give one example, 38 out of 50 states ban public sector strikes altogether.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is presenting a reasoned case, but she knows, and she has just used the word, that these things should be negotiated. The measures in this Bill are by fiat of the Secretary of State.

[Laura Farris]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. I am coming to all these things, so if he will give me a moment, I will continue.

In the United States, 38 out of 50 states have an outright ban on public sector strikes, including New York. Other states, such as Canada, Australia, Italy and Spain, all have embedded in statute minimum service levels that apply to important public services, and those services are often drawn much more widely than the Government are proposing. They include waste collection, postal services, broadcast services, the administration of justice, water distribution and energy supply.

I pick out those states not as random examples, but because every single one is a member of the International Labour Organisation. They are bound by exactly the same rules as us, and they are among our closest comparators around the world. Even more importantly, the International Labour Organisation has adjudicated all their statutory minimum service levels, and a 2019 publication from the ILO in Geneva commented:

“These examples illustrate the wide diversity of approach that ILO member states have adopted to address the challenges posed by industrial disputes in essential services”.

Minimum service levels

“supported by the ILO’s supervisory organs, exist to manage the balancing act between these necessary restrictions and the individual worker’s fundamental labour rights”.

I have not heard a single Member of Parliament tonight explain to me why the ILO is wrong or why the Government are striking the wrong balance when they have a mandate for what they are doing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a proud union member.

The Bill is an affront to Parliament. It will not protect the public, it will worsen industrial relations and it will undermine the unity of the United Kingdom. It should be voted down tonight. There has been much heated argument about the provisions in the Bill. On all the moral and pragmatic arguments, I stand firmly on the side of working people and their right to withdraw their labour, and against what the Government seek to do in the Bill. However, I do not consider that those moral and pragmatic arguments are likely to change the minds—or more importantly the votes—of Conservative Members. I therefore want to put forward an argument against the Bill that I believe they both can and should accept: it is damaging to our constitution and to the Union.

The reason the Bill is so short is that it delegates to the Secretary of State the power to set out all the relevant law in regulations through statutory instruments—regulations which receive only the most minimal scrutiny in this place and cannot be amended. So it is the Secretary of State, not Parliament, who will make regulations to determine the levels of service in relation to strikes, who gets to define the nature of the services to be provided, the number of people who are to provide them, the time at which they are to be provided and the manner in which they are to be provided during a strike. Extraordinarily, the Bill also proposes that the Secretary of State should have the power by regulation to

“amend, repeal or revoke provision made by or under primary legislation”

in this House. So statutes passed by Parliament can be amended by regulations drafted by the Minister without full parliamentary scrutiny. In a recent report by a Committee of the House of Lords, “Democracy Denied?”, their lordships state:

“A substantial groundswell of concern is developing about the shift in power from Parliament to ministers.”

This Bill is perhaps the most egregious example yet of a measure brought forward by an increasingly autocratic Executive to strip Parliament of its role in determining what, for many of us, is a critical area of employment and human rights.

It gets worse. The primary legislation that the Secretary of State can amend or repeal is defined to include an Act of the Senedd or the Scottish Parliament. That should set alarm bells ringing for all of us, nationalists and Unionists alike. What is being proposed is that the Secretary of State in Westminster should have the power by regulation to override devolved legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd—and to do so with minimal scrutiny in this House. If the Executive had intended to provoke constitutional outrage and call into question the very basis of the devolutionary settlements, they could not have designed a piece of legislation better guaranteed to do so.

That the Secretary of State in Whitehall should claim the power to legislate by regulation to interfere in devolved areas of government and to impose restrictions in different parts of this Union on the right to strike in transport, education, health and other public services in Scotland and Wales is more than unwarranted. It is more than inappropriate. It is a deliberate provocation and offence.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Would my hon. Friend like to comment on why the Government have refused even to agree to the super-affirmative procedure?

[Barry Gardiner]

That is quite simply because they are introducing a party political measure that is designed to provoke this House.

I call on all Conservative Members, if they care about the Union at all, to vote against this wrecking ball of a Bill, which will only provide succour to those voices seeking to destroy our constitutional settlement and our United Kingdom. Under the Bill, the employer has the unilateral right to identify in a work notice the individual workers required to operate the MSL. A worker who refuses to comply after having been requisitioned in this way will lose unfair dismissal protection.

The Government are thus authorising employers to do what not even a court in this country can do. Under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992:

“No court shall…compel an employee to do any work or attend at any place for the doing of any work.”

However, once the union is notified of the identity of the workers to be requisitioned, the Bill requires the union to take “reasonable steps” to ensure that all its members identified in the work notice comply with it. It is ironic that, under the Bill, the same trade union may be required to discipline or expel—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am terribly sorry that I had not given notice, but we are going down to three minutes to get as many people in as we possibly can.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I would highlight the downward pressure already placed on inflation, the changes to the money markets following the action taken by our Chancellor and Prime Minister and the stability being delivered through their future plan.

[Barry Gardiner]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will shortly. Ministers across Government have been meeting unions to resolve the disputes where it is possible to do so. It is obviously apparent that unions exist to represent union members. Apparently, from today’s debate, so does the Labour party. The shadow Cabinet alone has received £350,000 since 2019. It is important to reflect on those figures. We need to have the confidence that when workers strike, people’s lives and livelihoods are not put at risk, so we need the power to act. That is why this legislation is needed. The public expect us to act. It is no wonder that YouGov polling for The Times published last week found that 56% of voters support this legislation and only 31% are against it.

[Barry Gardiner]

The Minister will know that under this Bill it is possible for the Government to designate workers to perform under a contract when they have voted to go on strike. Will he at least give an assurance that there will be no attempt by any Secretary of State to designate a union official to break a strike that they have encouraged their union members to be involved in?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will deal with work notices later in my speech, but it is clear that it is up to employers to decide what workers are needed on certain days, and there is no discrimination between people who are union members and people who are not. That is very clear in the legislation. Hon. Members have questioned the sectors within the Bill. The sectors in scope of the Bill are justified as these sectors are where strike action causes disproportionate disruption to the general public.

COP27

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Monday 21st November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ms Ghani]

I have indeed answered that question and focused on the fact that we are aiming to reach net zero. We have to ensure that we have a mix of energy, and we have to phase out at a pace that means that we have a certain level of resilience and access to fuel and energy. We cannot just switch off the tap today and assume someone is going to step in tomorrow.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

That the UK is reducing emissions faster than other countries may be true, but it is not sufficient to meet the timescale within which we have to reduce emissions globally to realise 1.5°. Will the Minister tell me today what she is doing in terms of putting new money into that loss and damage fund, and to identify the new money? Much of what she has identified so far has been pre-announced—it is old money. Will she also tell me what she is doing to ensure that the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero will be adequately funded not only by the UK, but by other countries?

Oral Answers to Questions

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stuart]

We have an assessment process for all new licences to look at that and see its overall impact.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

T8. The Minister accused this side of the House of misrepresenting the figures on climate change, but it is the independent Climate Change Committee that says that the Government are not on track to achieve net zero and that 61% of their own targets for emission reductions have no credible plan in place to achieve them. Is the committee also misrepresenting the facts?

[Graham Stuart]

We are on track. [Interruption.] We are on track and we are focused on delivering that. The margins are tighter than we would like, but we are on track, we have delivered to date and we will deliver in future.

Energy Prices Bill

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 17th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner]

I agree about the difficulties under clause 16. Does my hon. Friend share my suspicion that, actually, the designated companies are precisely those renewable and nuclear generators that have not previously entered a contract for difference? This is simply intended to be a stick to force them into a voluntary contract for difference with the Government.

[Dr Whitehead]

My hon. Friend makes a good, if somewhat speculative, point. As the Bill mentions, the Government are seeking to regularise the status of various renewable generators into some form of CfD arrangement, but of course the “compensation” one might get varies according to the status of those particular generators that do not have a CfD and are getting their remuneration by other means.

Of course, there are generators in this particular area that are not making super-profits, and indeed are not making profits at all, because in most instances they are community-owned wind farms with a large number of shareholders. The purpose of those shareholdings is, among other things, to keep bills down by paying dividends from the wind farm. Such arrangements should clearly not be designated in the same way as other arrangements, even though these wind farms are perhaps not in receipt of a contract for difference and may look like a number of other arrangements.

My plea is that, first, the Government should define, as soon as possible, what is going to be designated and how it is going to be designated. That should go well beyond what is in this Bill and ensure that those generators that are designated really are those that should pay into a scheme. After reading the Bill, I think it is possible to make those changes so that designation is fair and equitable. I am sure that the Government will, very shortly, want to come out with a scheme that enables that to happen. I will certainly be on the phone to the Minister if it does not happen very quickly.

--- Later in debate ---

I draw Members’ attention to the lack of attention in the Bill to cheaper, sustainable forms of energy and the need to make our housing stock, which is some of the worst-performing in Europe on energy efficiency, more energy efficient. New clauses 13 and 15 would require the Secretary of State to pay attention to those serious shortcomings and help to lower people’s bills by reducing reliance on gas, providing cheaper forms of energy and enabling them to use less. The other provisions that I have tabled would improve transparency and allow a focus on the impact of the cost of living emergency on the most vulnerable. Given the Chancellor’s statement today, in which he explained that generalised support would be withdrawn and support would be targeted at the most vulnerable, measures to ensure that that support gets to the right homes are extremely important. I urge Members to support these new clauses and improve the Bill in the way it needs to be improved.

[Barry Gardiner]

The Minister began his speech by saying that the energy crisis is a global crisis. That is true. It grew out of the surge in global demand after the pandemic and it has certainly been compounded by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. However, it has been entrenched by the complicity of those countries in OPEC that have steadfastly refused to increase production and which the Government still count as close allies, including Saudi Arabia, on which much greater diplomatic pressure should be applied.

The hon. Members for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) and for Hexham (Guy Opperman) alluded to the way in which the Bill looks predominantly at the supply side. It should also look at the demand side. The chief executive of E.ON, Michael Lewis, has pointed out that a sustained programme of energy efficiency could have reduced the amount of energy used in UK homes by 25%—the equivalent of six Hinkley C nuclear power stations. The cheapest energy is the energy that we do not use, and the fact that 59% of homes in England are rated D or below for energy performance is a major factor in the desperate need of many families for support with their bills. A simple uprating of a home from energy performance certification D to C would save a home £500 a year—and that is on the basis of energy prices in April this year, before the latest spike. There would be even higher savings now.

That is why this summer E.ON and EDF called for the Government to double the energy company obligation scheme and for an expansion of the eligibility criteria to include 150,000 more homes. I hope that, under clause 22—under the powers to intervene that the Secretary of State is giving himself—the Government will use those powers to expand the ECO scheme precisely as those two major suppliers have requested.

While failure to address the demand side shows that the Government should have been investing in a comprehensive retrofit scheme over the past 12 years, it also highlights their failure, until Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine, to understand just how essential energy security is to our national security. Energy efficiency and renewable energy were regarded, in the words of our Prime Minister—that is, three Prime Ministers ago—as “green crap”. The truth is that, if we had rolled out a comprehensive programme of renewables and energy efficiency measures over the past 12 years, that stuff would now be regarded as green gold and there would be scant need for the provisions of this Bill.

Our failure should teach us another lesson. The way to become more energy secure and less reliant on fossil fuels is not to double down on them and devise new subsidies for fracking and new fields in the North sea, but to ramp up investments that will transition our economy from the fossil-fuelled past to the clean energy future. The Government claim that we have to expand our oil and gas production and that that will make our bills cheaper. The truth is it will not, not just because the wholesale market is an international market, rather than a domestic one, but because the North Sea Transition Authority is clear that the average time to production of any new facility is five years. Anything we do now to expand exploration licences cannot begin to have even the marginal impact that the minute percentage increase in global supply would predicate until 2027.

Moreover, in its analysis of production projections the North Sea Transition Authority has set out that the North sea basin will see annual declines of 9% and 6% respectively for gas and oil production out to 2050. That means that the Government are seeking to ramp up our dependence on fossil fuels at precisely the time they are diminishing and becoming more expensive, and are set to leave us with stranded assets and liabilities. Investment should be going into reducing demand, providing onshore wind and solar and creating the new jobs that will accompany such investment.

I set out in my speech on Second Reading the basis on which the oil and gas producers are and should be contributing to the measures in clause 1. Last year, energy prices meant that an average family were paying £1,100. After the windfall tax and the unfunded borrowing, that will be limited to an average of £2,500. The cost of that over the two years would be £31 billion, but now that the Chancellor has introduced the welcome Treasury-led review after six months, that would be simply £7.5 billion for the period in question. That is just about half a year’s worth of taxing the oil and gas producers at the global average level.

I welcome the Chancellor’s statement announcing the Treasury-led review, and urge him to ditch the investment allowance subsidy and adopt a tax rate that the rest of the globe considers fair and equitable.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I rise to speak to new clause 1, tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends from the city of Glasgow. In doing so, I also express my support for all the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), in particular manuscript new clause 18. I know that he will wish to press amendment 16 on the off-gas grid, which impacts constituents in the Gartloch area of my constituency.

For those of us who have the privilege of being Glaswegian, or at the very least adopted Glaswegians, arguably nothing symbolises home much more than the sandstone tenements which line our high streets and housing estates. Of course, they are not unique to Glasgow; tenements can be found in Liverpool as well as in Scotland’s lesser city of Edinburgh. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) even took me to see some tenements on Barrow Island last year. Let it never be said that she does not know how to organise a good date night, Mr Evans.

There is a serious point to all that and one that is particularly pertinent to Scotland in the context of both housing and energy policy. Nearly a fifth of all our housing stock is pre-1919—that is, 467,000 homes—and 68% of those have disrepair to critical elements. Furthermore, 36% have critical and urgent repair needs. The nature of these buildings is that they are incredibly expensive to heat. Without question they are genuinely beautiful, with their high ceilings and large bay windows, but they are constructed from sandstone with little to no cavity wall insulation.

It is welcome that the Government have introduced the Energy Prices Bill. Indeed, I always had faith that the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy would come round to our view that strong and regular state intervention was the way forward, but I am concerned that the Bill is only part of the solution to the energy crisis for tenement dwellers, as well as housing associations.

Back in 2019, a report was commissioned by the Glasgow and West of Scotland Forum of Housing Associations, which campaigns on behalf of community controlled housing groups. It warned of the “ticking time-bomb” of such properties. It has been estimated that the cost of restoring more than 46,000 tenement flats in Glasgow that were built pre-1919 and are deemed to be dangerous could hit £2.9 billion. I know that my local housing association, and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) and for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), certainly do not have that in their reserves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

I have so much to do and a duty to cover as much as I can, having agreed not to go on too long.

New clause 9 aims to remove regional variations from standing charges. Ofgem, which is responsible for the network charging regime, is considering that matter and we should not pre-empt the review’s outcome in the Bill.

Amendments 2 and 3 aim to enable the backdating of the gas price reduction scheme in Great Britain to begin from 8 September. The Government have designed the scheme to work in combination with the 22 May cost of living package to which I referred. That ensures that the most vulnerable households will see little change in their energy between last winter and this. I therefore do not see any need to alter the operative date of the energy price guarantee schemes.

I move on to amendments 19, 17, 18 and 7, new clause 5 and amendment 5 on the energy bill relief scheme. On amendments 17 and 19, the Government fully intend to introduce regulations under clause 9 and we expect them to be laid in Parliament by the beginning of November. I have committed to publishing a review of the scheme in three months.

[Barry Gardiner]

Will the Minister give way?

[Graham Stuart]

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will try to cover—

[Barry Gardiner]

The Minister did actually refer to me.

[Graham Stuart]

Indeed. On amendments 5 and 7, I am pleased to note that the hon. Members for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) and for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) agree with my decision to extend the eligibility date for customers on fixed-term contracts back to 1 December 2021. I hope that they also welcome our commitment to review the scheme, and I hope that that will please the hon. Member for Brent North.

[Barry Gardiner]

Will the Minister give way?

[David Linden]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

Will the Minister give way?

[Barry Gardiner]

Will the Minister give way?

[Graham Stuart]

I will not. Amendments 6 and 9 and new clause 12 would require equivalent support for domestic and non-domestic consumers. We have committed to providing equivalent support for consumers on alternative fuels. The Secretary of State has said that he will put the workings in the Library, and I appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee to recognise that the support is comparable. It is therefore important not to tell those who are off-grid that they are not getting comparable support when indeed they are.

[Barry Gardiner]

On a point of order, Mr Evans. Will you confirm that when a Minister, or indeed, any Member of Parliament, refers by name to another Member, it is courtesy and normal practice to allow them to respond to the point that was made? Indeed, in this case, the Minister talked about me doing more, as a Minister in the Labour Government, on ensuring that we had insulation. However, he seems to forget that in 2013, his Government cut that by 92%—

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is doing an intervention now. Is the Minister giving way?

Energy Prices Bill

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 17th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck; and if it looks like a tax and takes money like a tax, it is a tax.

This Bill introduces another windfall tax, not on the oil and gas producers but on the renewables producers. It is in the form of a cap on the revenues that renewable and nuclear companies can make. The electricity price is set on the basis of the wholesale gas price, and when the gas price went up companies saw an increase in the price they were paid for the electricity that they produced, although they did not have to pay the increased gas prices to produce it. When the Minister for Climate, the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), told the Select Committee the other day that this was not a windfall tax, his official tried to persuade us that it was simply a reframing of the regulations, but in fact the Government are trying to force those companies into a retrospective contract for difference, and they should be honest about it.

But look who benefits! The Government continue to allow the oil and gas companies to make excess profits from the global crisis, and also give them a way to claw back the windfall tax under the investment allowance scheme by claiming as a tax break 91p in every pound they invest in more production in the North sea. The Minister must explain why the Government are compensating these companies for the windfall tax, and also why the renewables companies—which are the ones we really need to incentivise to invest in more capacity—are being hit by this revenue cap, while not being given a similar investment allowance.

Before the temporary windfall tax the UK levied the lowest tax take from its oil and gas producers anywhere in the world, and even with the temporary windfall tax it still taxes a full 6% below the global average. If the UK taxed these companies even at the global average, it would recover an extra £13.4 billion for the Exchequer each year. The Committee on Climate Change wrote to the previous Chancellor—when he was the previous Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy but one—saying that he should support a tighter limit on production with stringent tests and a presumption against exploration. He took no notice, and the measures in this Bill are the consequences of the Government’s now being forced to protect consumers and business from their past failure to invest in renewables.

Last year, energy prices meant that an average family was paying £1,100. After the windfall tax and the unfunded borrowing, that will now be limited to an average of £2,500. The cost would, for the two years, be £31 billion, but given the statement from—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order.

Energy Prices: Support for Business

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Of course, that depends on what the hon. Lady means by “energy companies”, because the domestic suppliers have not been making enormous amounts of money. Indeed, many of them have gone out of business over the last few months, so they have not been making vast amounts of money.

Some businesses have been making a lot of money; they pay very significant amounts of tax already. It is important that we do not assume that there is some honeypot of businesses that can be raided—there is not. We need long-term investment in this country to maximise the exploration and production of oil and gas to ensure that we have lower prices and sustainable businesses. That is not aided by putting taxes on at every opportunity, which the socialists always want to do.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The domestic scheme is based on a loan to be repaid out of future bills. If the business scheme is to be repaid in the same way, why would businesses not regard it as a deferred tax rise? If it is not, does the Secretary of State really expect it to be repaid out of general taxation by the rest of the taxpayers? “Tax, tax, tax” is what he is saying.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Economic growth, economic growth, economic growth.

Shale Gas Extraction

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I regularly have conversations with the Secretary of State for Scotland.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

This cannot be justified on environmental or economic grounds. The investment allowance will give gas producers 91p in every pound invested in new frack pads. Warwick Business School calculates that fracking could produce 330 billion cubic metres at a maximum—about 100 billion therms. At today’s spot price, from about 20 minutes ago, that would be £289 billion. Given that the taxpayers are covering nine tenths of the investment, why should they not get nine tenths of the profit?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman is making the argument for fracking. If there is that amount that we can get out, we should get it out as quickly as possible, and then we should ensure that it is distributed properly so that the people who are affected benefit, so that the companies that have invested benefit, and, yes, so that the taxpayer benefits. The oil and gas we get out of the North sea has been an enormous benefit to the taxpayer and has helped us have energy security. It is a beneficial thing to do. As regards the economics, it is straightforward: private companies will not invest if it is not a good deal. That is the basis of economics, and it is the right basis of economics.

Net Zero Strategy: High Court Ruling

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Thursday 21st July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

I am afraid to say that is an extraordinary attack, even by the hon. Gentleman’s standards. Actually, this Government were the first to introduce a net zero target. At COP26, we saw our Prime Minister and our COP President leading the world on action against climate change—action that others now seek to copy.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The UK has the lowest tax take in the world from offshore oil and gas. Even with the temporary energy profits levy, the tax take will still be six percentage points lower than the global average, and the new investment allowance announced by the Government will compensate companies 91p for every £1 they spend on new oil and gas projects. Will the Government look carefully at the fiscal regime and abolish the obscene subsidy that is distorting investment into outdated fossil fuels instead of new renewables, which do not qualify for that investment allowance?

[Greg Hands]

I return to what I said earlier. The situation we inherited from the last Labour Government is that renewables provided only 7% of our electricity mix; it is now 43%. When it comes to oil and gas taxation, the Government’s energy profits levy—the hon. Gentleman will know this, as I very clearly remember him debating it in the Chamber—is set to raise £5 billion this year, which is considerably more than the tax proposed by the Labour Front Bench, which he backed.

Employment Agencies and Trade Unions

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jane Hunt]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and for his expertise and knowledge in the field.

This is a permissive change that will not force employment businesses to supply agency staff to employers to cover strikes. Agency workers will still be able to decline any assignments they are offered and the right to strike is unaffected. This change is simply about giving both employers and employees more freedom and flexibility to decide what works best for them—a freedom that the current outdated regulations deny them.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jane Hunt]

If you do not mind, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am going to make some progress.

I have also seen some reports that this changes will somehow put workers or the wider public at risk. This is not the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner]

Does the hon. Member understand that as the normal remedy is an injunction, what he proposes might, ironically, make injunctions against strikes more difficult for employers to obtain? One of the conditions for the grant of an interlocutory emergency injunction is that it must be shown that damages, if awarded at full trial, would not be an adequate remedy, so raising the level of that remedy makes it less likely that an employer could get an injunction. The hon. Member’s argument has therefore undermined itself.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am grateful for that intervention, but I fundamentally disagree. As the hon. Member will know, when someone makes an interlocutory application for an injunction, they often have to give an undertaking in damages. The cap, which I have not yet come on to, will not be raised to a new level; the order merely restores what was put in place, which was the will of Parliament when the legislation was enacted back in 1982.

There is a very strong argument that an organisation that causes loss to another through its breach of a duty of care should be responsible for 100% of damages, but the Government have not taken that view. They have capped the liability in damages for trade unions, even when strikes are illegal. They have tried to balance the disincentive from strike action, for which I make no apology, with protection for trade unions from the full consequences of their actions, even though they might be illegal. The reason is that the Government are in favour of trade unions and do not want crippling damages being awarded against them. There is a balance of rights and obligations, which in my view is absolutely reasonable.

The cap was set by Parliament under the Employment Act 1982 at between £10,000 and £250,000, based on the size of the union and its ability to pay. It seems quite wrong, in 38 intervening years, for the caps not to have been increased by the rate of inflation or by any other amount. The rights of unions and the rights of damaged businesses and individuals have now, in my submission, become unbalanced. The legislation is no longer acting as proposed, and I think the Government are quite right to take action to rebalance it, as it originally required. I have looked up, on the Office for National Statistics website, the retail prices index figures for inflation between January 1982 and May 2022. The multiplier, to be entirely accurate, is 4.31963. The Government’s proposals, which use a multiplier of four, are actually less than the inflationary increase.

It is entirely right that the order restores the original intention of Parliament. The legal right to strike is wholly protected, and it is disingenuous for Opposition Members to suggest that the right to strike is being in any way affected. The order merely restores the balance of rights between the damages available to the victims—and they are victims—of tortious losses caused by illegal strike action and the protection of trade unions from crippling losses. That is right: it is an incentive to avoid illegal strikes, which I think is a good thing.

This is good government. I support the order; I only suggest that from now on, the limits should rise automatically with inflation to avoid having a repeat of this debate in 2060.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The Government seem to think that most workers are unskilled or uncertified, but agency workers are simply not there with the relevant skills and certification to perform their work in a way that is safe. I began today at the St Monica Trust, at two sites just outside Bristol, to speak to workers there who have withdrawn their labour because of the appalling offer they have been given of being fired and rehired unless they accept lower wages and terms and conditions. They were earning, on average, between £16,000 and £17,000 a year—about what a Secretary of State’s severance pay is—and they made it clear to me that their main worry and their main reason for going on strike was not actually for their own sake. They were concerned for the welfare of the residents of the residential homes and the retirement village.

I want to ask the Minister tonight whether she will please report the St Monica Trust to the Health and Safety Executive and ensure that a positive inspection is carried out there, because the workers out on the picket line were very concerned about the safety of employing unskilled workers who do not understand the residents and are not able to care for them in the way that they have all the way through covid. They were there on Christmas day and all the time when relatives could not visit; they treated them as their family. The agency workers cannot do that.

I want to make a couple of other brief points. Agency workers are generally paid significantly more than permanent staff, and that reflects the intermittent nature of their work. However, the employer, by paying agency rates to strike breakers in a dispute, actually makes the union’s case for it, because it shows that the employer actually can pay higher rates for the job. How very foolish of them.

Finally, I want to ask whether the Minister might, in her summing up, explain whether the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has replied to the letter written at the end of June by Hays, Adecco, Randstad and Manpower, in conjunction with the TUC, in which they said:

“We can only see these proposals inflaming strikes—not ending them”.

It seems to me that, when we have the employers of the agencies themselves saying that this is a bad thing to do, the Government should listen.