Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 18th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on his reference to “Star Trek” on Report. At least he referred to the amendments as well.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

Through this pernicious piece of legislation the Government seek to give themselves the power to scrap a whole host of legal protections that we currently enjoy, including hard-won employment rights and environmental protections. Through the Bill, a sunset provision will be placed on retained EU law, causing the vast majority of it to expire at the end of 2023. It could apply to more than 2,400 pieces of legislation. Indeed, reports suggest that the figure could be as high as 4,000.

The laws in question cover areas including environmental protection, food safety, civil aviation codes, health and safety in the workplace, employment law, parental leave, intellectual property, product safety, biosecurity, private pension protections, vehicle standards and noise pollution. The very idea that the Government should give themselves the power to discard such a large amount of legislation is shocking indeed. Decisions about UK law should be made in Parliament, not by Ministers. I therefore support amendment 36, which would require the Government to publish an exhaustive list of every piece of legislation being revoked under the sunset clause in the Bill and which would give the House of Commons the ultimate say on which legislation is affected. This would take power out of the hands of Ministers and provide transparency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margaret Greenwood]

I am just trying to squeeze a bit more out of Mr Deputy Speaker’s kind gift. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need a guarantee from the Minister today that there will be no watering down of asbestos controls?

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 16th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

I stand as a proud trade unionist in solidarity with my constituents who are taking strike action, and with workers across the country. We are seeing widespread strikes in the public sector because of the abject failure of more than 12 years of Conservative government. The Government have pushed nurses, ambulance workers and other dedicated NHS staff to the brink. They are taking strike action not only on pay, but as part of their campaign for patient safety and, as they have told me, to save the national health service. The Government now want to repay them by threatening to sack them for doing so. My constituents have written to me to tell me that they are appalled. The Bill is a shameful attack on the rights of working people. Richard Arthur, head of trade union law at Thompsons Solicitors, said:

“The introduction of minimum safety levels does not comply with the United Kingdom’s legal obligations under Convention No. 87 of the International Labour Organisation on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise, and Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”

He is one of many who expect there to be legal challenges to the Bill.

Last October, the Government published the Transport Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill, allowing minimum service levels to be introduced during strikes in certain transport services. It seems that that Bill has now been superseded by the one we are debating. In the European convention on human rights memorandum that accompanied the Transport Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill, the Government set out why minimum service requirements would not apply to other sectors. Just a few months ago they were clear that “important factors” already existed in other sectors

“to mitigate the impacts of industrial action in those sectors on wider society.”

For example, in health, they pointed to the fact that unions include guidance to their members on their approach to life-and-limb arrangements. So why have Ministers changed their minds?

The Government now say that they are

“introducing this legislation to ensure that striking workers don’t put the public’s lives at risk.”

That is an insult to workers who kept the country running during the covid-19 pandemic, putting themselves at considerable risk. In particular, it is an insult to nursing unions and representative bodies that worked hard to ensure that there would be cover for urgent cases during their strike. As the TUC points out, the Bill is the Government’s

“latest attack on the right to strike”,

and I will be voting against it this evening.

Skills and Labour Shortages

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) on securing this important debate.

According to the Confederation of British Industry, 90% of the UK workforce—or 30 million people—will need to be reskilled by 2030. In its report published in October 2020, it also said that automation and technology will bring millions of new jobs to the UK, and that there would be a big rise in demand for skills such as digital, STEM and interpersonal, but many other roles will change significantly or disappear. The occupations that are most likely to shrink have the lowest rates of training, the highest unemployment rates and the lowest wages.

We do not know what the workforce of the future will look like. However, we know that with more automation and artificial intelligence, some sectors will be changed beyond recognition. It is clear that we need to think very carefully about the skills strategy, and in particular, what that means for those on low pay. Although it is important to look at current skills shortages and to plan to address them, a long-term perspective is much needed. Adopting too narrow an approach to skills and education will not serve us well. We also need to be clear that investment in education and skills is crucial for the future of our economy and wider society.

It is therefore massively disappointing that, last month, the “Annual report on education spending in England” from the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that even though total spending on adult skills is set to increase by 22% between 2019-20 and 2024-25,

“this only reverses a fraction of past cuts: total adult skills spending in 2024-25 will still be 22% below 2009-10 levels.”

Spending on classroom-based adult education has fallen even more

“and will still be 40% below 2009-10 levels even with the additional funding.”

There is a particular need to focus on basic skills if we are to improve our economic outlook.

[Mr Perkins]

On that point about basic skills, there was an incredibly successful Unionlearn programme, which enabled people who were in the workplace, whether they were members of a trade union or not, to access some of the basic skills they might not have got at school. It made a radical difference to people’s careers and their progression. Does my hon. Friend agree that getting rid of Unionlearn was a retrograde and politically motivated move and that we are paying a dear price for it?

[Margaret Greenwood]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I agree; getting rid of Unionlearn did a disservice to our country and everybody in it.

A recent report by the Centre for Social Justice points to a huge deficit of basic skills across England. One of those basic skills is adult literacy. According to the National Literacy Trust, 7.1 million adults in England—that is 16.4% of the adult population—are functionally illiterate. However, the Government have failed to respond to the severity of the crisis. I highlighted the matter with amendments to both the Bill that became the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 and, more recently, to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. Both amendments called on the Government to review levels of adult literacy, publish the findings and set out a strategy to improve levels of adult literacy.

In ignoring the scale of the crisis in adult literacy, the Government are wasting the talents of more than 16% of the adult population. That makes absolutely no sense. We need a Government that will provide people with the opportunity to acquire skills that they need to progress, both for their personal development and the good of the economy.

I am also concerned about the Government’s approach to skills and adult education more widely. It seems that Ministers are focusing intensely on skills for jobs, to the detriment of education as a whole. The benefits of an educated society cannot be overestimated. Some of those benefits are demonstrated clearly in the Workers’ Educational Association 2022 impact report. The WEA does a fantastic job in providing the secretary to the all-party group for adult education, which I chair.

The WEA supports adults to gain the skills they need to get into work and to improve their prospects if they are already in work. It also helps adults who are often far away from the labour market to develop skills to cope with social isolation, to improve their physical and mental health, and to acquire a love of learning by helping them to develop interests and connections with the communities around them. The WEA’s impact report notes that 84% of the association’s students reported improvements in their overall wellbeing, 51% reported an increase in their self-confidence, and 43% said that their course helped them to make new friends.

The Government’s recent consultation document on implementing a new further education funding and accountability system sets out proposals to

“re-orientate the vision for non-qualification provision”

in areas funded by the Education and Skills Agency, which account for about 40% of adult education provision. The Government propose that, in future, all non-qualification provision in adult education

“should meet at least one of the following objectives:…achieving employment outcomes for all learners…achieving progression to further learning that moves individuals closer to the labour market, for all learners…helping those with learning difficulties and/or disabilities to support their personal development and access to independent living”.

Although all of those are hugely important, stakeholders are understandably concerned about what this might mean for people who need longer to gain the confidence or basic skills to progress into work. I am also concerned about what the Government’s approach means for the delivery of a broad adult education curriculum. I would be grateful if the Minister could give a reassurance that his Government’s policies will not mean the abolition of courses in subjects such as art, history, sociology, drama, music and literature.

Sue Pember, the policy director at HOLEX, the professional body for adult community education and learning, has pointed out that the consultation

“seems to have missed the point that many adult learners don’t sign up for their first course because they think it might lead to a better job or set them on a pathway to a brand-new suite of qualifications. Most turn up to adult community education because they want a fresh start, they’re hoping to find a sense of community and to improve their wellbeing.”

That certainly rings true with my experience as a former adult education tutor. On many occasions, I have seen the impact that being able to learn a subject later in life can have on an adult who may not have benefited from education in their younger years. There are many reasons why someone did not thrive during their school years, such as ill health, the ill health of a family member, or the fact that they moved around a lot as a child and were not able to settle in one area.

Sue Pember’s statement also brings to mind something that I heard during a recent meeting with the University and College Union’s adult education members. One of the people there told me a story about their student who went on to attain a PhD, I believe, in biochemistry. When the student first attended the college, she went to a course in belly dancing. She wanted some relaxation—I think she wanted to get away from her kids—but she wound up with a PhD in a very difficult science subject. That is a good example of how having something on offer for people who want to pursue their own interests can lead to further opportunities.

It seems that the cultural shift away from education and skills, and towards the Government’s narrow focus on solely vocational skills, will significantly reduce opportunities for adults to learn in subjects that they can enjoy and that can bring them benefits that are not necessarily employment-related. We need not only skills training opportunities, but adult education in community settings with a broad curriculum offer. That can be particularly important for people who find themselves unemployed after decades of work, as well as for retired people who want to learn something new.

At a time when we have an ageing society and increasing problems of loneliness, it cannot be right to bring in measures that have the potential to remove community-based learning opportunities. Further, someone who has come out of paid employment to care for a family member, or who has been made redundant, may well benefit far more from a course that does not have any obvious career outcome, particularly if they need to regain their confidence after being away from the labour market. Redundancy can knock people’s sense of confidence.

Education gives people the opportunity to develop and explore things that are of interest to them. When it comes to learning, there is no greater motivation than being interested. To narrow the focus of adult education and skills in the way that the Government are doing is to leave us much poorer culturally. Unless adults are provided with a good range of opportunities in their communities, we are not harnessing the talents of everyone in the country, and we are depriving people of the opportunity to become the very best that they can. That is a detriment to us all.

As I said, we do not know what the jobs of the future will look like, so we need to make sure that people have the opportunities to retrain and to enrich their lives through education at any point in life. The Government need to invest in all of our futures.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Sir Graham. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) on securing this vital debate.

Despite the shocks of the pandemic, the labour market has recovered well, as the hon. Lady pointed out. The employment rate is at a historic high, and unemployment and inactivity are low by historical and global standards. She is right that employment shortages are a drag on the economy. In many ways, the shortages are counter- intuitive: as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) said, there was net migration of over 500,000 people last year—a huge amount of immigration. Of course, we need to ensure that the immigration that we get meets the needs of employers.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), made an interesting point. It is wrong to look at the issue in the context of the UK alone; the issues affect all developed nations. In fact, the World Economic Forum recently said that labour shortages are apparent across all OECD countries. In the UK, there are 1.187 million vacancies and 1.247 million unemployed people. In the US, incredibly, there are 10.5 million vacancies: 1.74 job opportunities for every person who is looking for a job. On that basis, the US has an even greater problem than the UK. Nevertheless, we have to take the issue seriously, and do what we can, competitively and in an international context, to try to resolve the problem and grow the economy for the benefit of all. Ensuring that the right people, with the right skills, are in the right jobs is essential to achieving that.

The hon. Member for Chesterfield may be aware that both skills and labour shortages have been at the centre of much ongoing work and many discussions across Government. The causes of labour shortages are complex; they are not attributable to any single factor. Broadly, some of the major causes of reduced labour supply include long-term sickness, which has been mentioned, and early retirement—two areas that the Government are making a significant effort to address. Indeed, I will meet next week with colleagues in the Treasury, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, the Minister for Employment and key stakeholders—largely employer organisations—to see how we can address the issues.

Late last year, the autumn statement set out the scope of a review that will thoroughly assess workforce participation early in 2023. Numerous Select Committees have also taken an acute interest in labour shortages. Most recently, the Lords Economic Affairs Committee published its findings on labour supply. I appeared before the Committee and hold the members in very high regard, and I welcome its conclusions and the continued attention paid to labour market policy. A resilient labour market is vital if the UK is to retain its position as a world-leading economy. We must ensure that people of all ages are able to climb the ladder of opportunity and develop the skills that they, the country and business need.

I recognise that, as Members have said, businesses are struggling to recruit the right people and face other issues. The Government are committed to helping businesses that are struggling to get through those issues. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised an important point about hospitality, which clearly features in most of our constituencies. I am fully aware of the some of the difficulties that hospitality faces. There is no doubt that Brexit has been an issue, and we should not try to ignore the issues of Brexit. The net migration figure has increased, but the profile of the workers is different, as the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran said. We need to ensure that the supply meets the demand—not least for hospitality. I chair the Hospitality Sector Council, which has a sub-group looking at the issue right now. It includes leading people from the world of hospitality and business representative groups. We are keen to resolve these issues.

I will touch on Brexit. Even though I voted to remain in the European Union, it is wrong to look at it as simply a difficulty for the United Kingdom; there are clearly opportunities as well. One particular opportunity in the UK is the opportunity to mine lithium. We have been able to do that more effectively and quickly than some of our international counterparts, as we have managed to change our health and safety rules to cut some of the red tape and make it more viable.

As many Members have concluded, it is clear that the country has a number of skills gaps and, in certain sectors, those gaps are causing labour shortages. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran raised the issue of nurses. She is right that we have nurse shortages that we need to fill, despite having 40,000 more nurses than were working in the service in 2010.

I will focus on three core things: what the Government are doing to identify skills gaps; where we see skills gaps and how we need to tackle them; and wider action that we are taking to address labour supply shortages. The Department for Education is leading on improving the collection, analysis and dissemination of labour market information to support decision making by actors across the skills system. That important point was raised by the hon. Member for Wirral West. That will ensure that we can improve the skills system. That work includes a regular cycle of employer skills surveys to gather insights on employer needs and engagement with the skills system.

We have established the Unit for Future Skills, a new analytical and research unit working across Government to improve the quality of jobs and skills data, which will be made more available and accessible to policymakers, stakeholders and the general public, and will support a better understanding of skills mismatches and future demand. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran may be aware that Skills Development Scotland does similar work to the Unit for Future Skills. Officials from DfE and the devolved Administrations have met to discuss how that work can be shared, and will continue to engage on it.

For England, the Government are also establishing local skills improvement plans; that goes to some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran about rural areas and depopulation. The plans will help to forge stronger and more dynamic partnerships between employers and providers, and help to make training more responsive to employer and local market needs.

The hon. Member for Strangford raised the issue of skills in the food production sector. I think he has a Karro facility in his constituency—a pork production facility. That production is key to his constituency and mine. I have visited that organisation and that facility, and I was struck by what it was doing to ensure that it was equipping young people in the local area with the skills that they needed for butchering and the like. Normally, those people would be coming in from eastern Europe, so these things are having specific beneficial effects for young people in our areas. It is key that businesses invest in the skills of their domestic workforce.

Local skills improvement plans in England are already working and making a difference. In the west of England, the local skills improvement plans identified health and social care, aerospace and advanced engineering as the sectors with the greatest skills challenges. We have awarded £2.75 million to colleges in the area to develop new courses and facilities for both sectors, including new apprenticeship routes for allied health professionals.

[Margaret Greenwood]

The Minister is talking about LSIPs and the areas of skills shortages that they have identified; he has given examples. Will he describe how we will get the investment that we need in adult basic skills? Local employers will not naturally think about people who cannot really read and write very well. My concern is that if they are describing what the offer is, that whole cohort of people who desperately need help to improve themselves may never get any help at all.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I think the adult education budget has something to do with that, but the hon. Lady is right to point to the improvements that we need to make in numeracy and literacy. Clearly, that is not directly the responsibility of my Department, but I am very keen to go back to DFE and make sure that it is aware of her views.

On identifying skills gaps, evidence from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development shows that 46% of employers reported having hard-to-fill vacancies. The top response from employers with hard-to-fill vacancies has been to upskill staff, which is clearly key. We know which regions have the highest skill-shortage density, and we know about the impact on employers when they lose business. The key areas where we feel that the skills gaps are most acute are workforce sectors with high volumes of vacancies, green jobs, which have been mentioned by many Members, growth sectors, and science and tech. We are committed to tackling these skills gaps through major investment and reforms to skill and further education provision.

I turn to some of the excellent work done by my colleagues in the Department for Education on apprenticeships, which were mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet and the hon. Member for Chesterfield. There have been over 5.1 million apprenticeship starts since May 2010. In recent years we have transformed apprenticeships, driving up the quality so that they better meet the skills needs of employers. I fully recognise and support businesses’ calls for us to make the levy funds more flexible, but we have to see the issue in context.

Some of the earlier apprenticeship schemes were criticised for not being sufficiently robust and challenging, or of the right quality. It is about striking a balance, but I am very impressed by some of the skills bootcamp-type schemes that perhaps we should focus on in order to give more flexibility. I went to see a new initiative called Trade Up, which seeks to double the number of construction workers. It is a private sector initiative with very short, 10 to 16-week courses, and it involves getting gas fitters and joiners back into the sector.

There are lots of different solutions that we need to look at. The Government have launched T-levels for young people, which will boost access to high-quality technical education. The Government are also committed to ensuring that, at any stage, adults can upskill to reach their potential through skills bootcamps and level 3 free courses for jobs in priority areas. The adult education budget, and giving adults a funding entitlement to get English, maths and digital qualifications, is hugely important, as the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran said.

The Government’s research and development people and culture strategy puts people at the heart of research and development, and sets out our plans to attract enough people with the rights skills across all roles. We are aiming for a full pipeline of research and innovation workers for the future. A huge part of understanding the role that skills play is making sure that we can respond to labour market shortages. The Government are working closely with businesses, and encouraging them to take a stronger role in providing their workforce with skills and training.

Do you want me to conclude, Sir Graham?

Industrial Action

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

Of course we want to see healthcare workers paid, and I meant the words that I used at the top of the statement. Hon. Members will remember that my father was ill during covid, so I experienced the NHS at its best and most heroic while it was struggling to serve people under almost unbelievable pandemic circumstances. I absolutely agree with her about the incredible work that NHS staff do. There is a pay offer on the table that has not been invented by the Government—it has come from the independent pay review body. The Government have accepted in full and in every circumstance the recommendations of the independent pay review bodies this year. Those who say that we should ignore the independent pay review bodies need to explain why and where they will find the money to do that so that it is fair to other taxpayers.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

This statement is an attack on fundamental employment rights. More than 12 years of Conservative Government failure to invest in vital public services has led to nurses, ambulance crews, civil servants and transport workers taking industrial action. I stand in solidarity with them. If the Government wanted to protect the levels of public services, they would give them the funding and staffing that they need instead of running them down. Why are the Government determined to run down our public services and national health service? Why will Ministers not engage in proper negotiations to end the disputes?

[Grant Shapps]

In the politest possible way, I think that once we have been going for an hour, some of the questions that were written in advance and possibly even handed out by the unions have been categorically disproved—as I have explained many times, this is not against international law or the ECHR, for all the reasons that I have already covered—but they continue to be read out as if they are a new contribution. Those questions ignore the basic fact that there is another side to the issue, which is the safety of the hon. Lady’s constituents and ours. Tomorrow, when there is an ambulance strike and the unions refuse to commit to national safety levels with the management of the trusts, everyone’s life will be more at risk than it should be. It is perfectly reasonable to introduce what happens throughout much of the rest of the world, and certainly our European neighbours, and to have minimum safety standards in place so that we can protect the public.

Public Ownership of Energy Companies

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mrs Murray. I pay tribute to everybody who has signed the petition.

Energy is a necessity for all of us, yet people are at the mercy of big business when it comes to deciding who can afford to heat their homes or run their businesses. Profits at the world’s biggest oil companies have soared to nearly £150 billion so far this year. At the same time, as the e-petition acknowledges, people are having to choose between heating and eating. That cannot be right. As Lord Sikka has written:

“It is Christmas every day for oil and gas companies, and their shareholders and executives are laughing all the way to the bank, leaving the rest of us to pick up the cost in higher energy prices, inflation, bankruptcies and a deepening cost of living crisis.”

Labour called for a windfall tax on oil and gas back in January so that some of the eye-watering profits that are being raked off by big business could support people to pay their bills. However, it took months for the Government to U-turn and follow Labour’s lead, and even then the then Chancellor, now Prime Minister, could not resist resorting to his instinct to put big business first and everyone else last. He allowed those energy giants to shield most of their profits from the very levy that he was announcing. The Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy Act 2022, which the current Prime Minister designed, allows energy companies to apply tax savings worth 91p in every £1 invested in fossil fuel extraction in the UK. Promoting fossil fuel extraction instead of investment in renewables is irresponsible as we face the climate emergency, and it is an insult to young people and to future generations. Labour has called for the tax to be tightened to remove the option for energy firms to claim tax relief on 91% of the levy if the money is reinvested.

It is notable that, during the passage of that Act, the Government voted against a Labour new clause that would have required an assessment within three months of the Bill becoming law of how much extra revenue would have been raised if the levy had been introduced on 9 January 2022 rather than 26 May 2022. The 9th of January is significant because that is when Labour first called for a windfall tax—four and half months before the Government came forward with their U-turn. Why did it take the Government so long to act? I would be grateful if the Minister could respond on that point. There have been reports over the weekend that the windfall tax on energy companies could be raised to 30% and extended by three years. Perhaps the Minister could give us more information today, and let us know what discussions have taken place about that in Government.

It is clear that there is a need for long-term change where energy is concerned. As the independent campaign group We Own It has highlighted, of the top 10 countries in the world that are leading the energy transition to renewables, only the United Kingdom does not have a publicly owned renewable energy generation company. Of those that do, Sweden owns 100% of Vattenfall, one of Europe’s largest producers of electricity and heat; Norway owns 100% of Statkraft, Europe’s largest renewable energy producer; Switzerland owns 100% of Axpo, the country’s largest producer of renewable energy; Iceland owns 100% of Landsvirkjun, the country’s largest electricity generator; and France will soon own 100% of EDF, a world leader in low-carbon electricity generation and a company that many of us in this country use—despite the fact that the French people will own 100% of it fairly shortly. The other countries—Denmark, Austria, Finland and New Zealand—all own at least 50% of renewable energy generation companies.

There is a lot of public support for the United Kingdom to go down a similar path. There are no profits for shareholders in a publicly owned energy company. A poll for We Own It, carried out by Survation, found that 66% of those surveyed wanted energy in public ownership. Earlier this month it was reported that a YouGov poll found that 55% of more than 1,700 adults who were surveyed across Great Britain favoured public ownership of energy. In August, a poll by 38 Degrees found that 73% of voters would favour temporarily renationalising energy companies if they cannot offer lower bills.

Public ownership of services is understandably popular, whether that be energy, water, buses, trains or the NHS. The NHS has been massively opened up to the private sector on the Conservative’s watch, with billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money being handed to private companies to treat NHS patients. Privatisation is never a guarantee of quality. According to a study by the University of Oxford, private sector outsourcing in the NHS corresponded with significantly increased rates of treatable mortality, potentially as a result of a decline in the quality of healthcare services.

To return to energy, Common Wealth reported recently that 72% of voters think it is a good idea to set up an energy company that is Government owned and aims to create low-cost environmentally friendly energy. Labour has announced a plan to establish Great British Energy, a new publicly owned, clean-generation company that will harness the power of the sun, wind and waves to cut energy bills and deliver energy security and independence for our country, as well as good, secure, high-paid jobs.

[Margaret Ferrier]

On that point, in September, in response to a written question on an impact assessment for nationalisation, the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), said:

“The Government does not intend to make such an assessment. Nationalisation will not solve the current challenge of high global fossil fuel prices and the impact this is having on the cost of energy.”

Does the hon. Member agree that it is difficult to see how Ministers can speak with such certainty if they will not even make a full assessment?

--- Later in debate ---

[Margaret Greenwood]

The hon. Lady raises a really interesting point, and I thank her for it. To me, it speaks of ideology rather than taking a practical approach to what needs to happen to secure our energy and bring down our energy costs.

Among other things, GB Energy will enable long-term investments in a range of new and emerging technologies. It will also ensure that home-grown research and development leads to domestic manufacturing, and nurture partnerships with small and medium-sized enterprises and large local employers. It will enable the UK to retain the strategic assets that we need to build national resilience.

To reiterate my earlier point, of the 10 countries in the world who are leading the clean energy transition, only the UK does not have a public generation company. The Government should reflect on that and be bold, as a Labour Government would be.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (George Freeman)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. May I take this opportunity to say what a pleasure it is to be back on the Front Bench after the turmoil of the last few months?

Let me first congratulate the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) on securing the debate, and David and the 100,000 public petitioners who triggered it. As an open democrat, I welcome the fact that the public are able to trigger debates. It is important that we respond, and I am glad that the public will be able to see the response both in real time and recorded. I thank hon. Members for their contributions, and I am grateful to all those who have taken an interest in the topic.

The petition received over 100,000 signatures and calls on the Government to do two things: to set out a coherent 25-year plan for UK energy security and strategy, and to take back ownership of our strategic energy assets. As the Minister for Science, Technology, Research and Innovation in the Department, I am delighted to be replying on behalf of the Minister for Climate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart).

Let me put everyone out of their misery of expectation and anxiety about what I might say. I absolutely agree that we need a 25-year coherent plan for energy, which is why the Government have put just that in place. I also agree that we need to think much more strategically about our energy security resilience and energy economy, but the Government do not agree that nationalisation is the right way to achieve the objectives that many, but not all, of us share. I say that not in the spirit of complacency at all.

It is fair to say that successive Governments over the last 40-odd years have taken cheap energy rather for granted, and have not foreseen the urgency of decarbonising our energy supply nor the geopolitical perils of being dependent on overseas suppliers, often from hostile or unsavoury regimes.

[Margaret Greenwood]

rose—

[George Freeman]

I will just finish this list, if I may. I approach this issue with no ideology, either. All parties have had their problems in the past: in the ’60s and ’70s Labour was rather heavily dominated by the union barons, and the nationalised industry did not do nearly enough to promote innovation. I notice no Liberal Democrat Members here; theirs and the Scottish National party’s tribal opposition to nuclear leaves them playing one-club golf. I do not think there are any easy solutions to this issue, but I do not want to dismiss the urgency of the problem.

[Margaret Greenwood]

The Minister is talking about a 25-year strategy. Given that we are facing a climate emergency, could he explain what the thinking was, and presumably still is, on allowing companies to shield 91% of their profits from a windfall tax designed to tax profits? That means that they are able to invest those profits in fossil fuels.

[George Freeman]

I will happily set out the explanation for our position, which I think will deal with that point. If it does not, I am sure that the Climate Minister will want to follow up with the hon. Lady. We profoundly believe that the way to deliver a low carbon, net zero, sustainable, resilient British energy market and supply chain is to harness the market—the enterprise, the investment, the leadership and the management excellence of the free market—but not in an untrammelled way. I will set out in a moment how our approach is not at all about the free market but about harnessing the market with a lot of regulations, shape and structure, harnessing the genius of the market to public ends. That is a fundamental difference.

[Margaret Greenwood]

I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being generous with his time. He talks about harnessing the market, but he is talking about directing that investment at fossil fuels. How does he square that with our need to meet net zero? That does not make sense.

[George Freeman]

I will deal with that point as I come on to explain our position on net zero and the extraordinary success that the market has had, with appropriate regulation.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Freeman]

I am not totally sure I understand the question. The point is that we live in a modern global economy. I do not think anyone other than political dinosaurs would think we can ring-fence all investment to only one country. We live in a global economy, and that is all to the good. This country benefits hugely from that investment. A huge risk of the proposed renationalisation is that, internationally, it would destroy investors’ confidence in the UK, and that is something we have to think seriously about. We do not have a right to attract international investment. We need to be competitive, and this debate has lacked that point.

We are a world leader in offshore wind, with an ambition to deliver up to 50 GW of offshore wind power by 2030, including 5 GW of floating wind. That is something to be proud of. In my part of the world in East Anglia, the southern North sea is rapidly becoming the Saudi Arabia of wind energy. With proper interconnected offshore grid connectors, we will be able to use off-peak energy to generate green hydrogen. That is an exciting development and it has all been provided by the market—not the free and untrammelled market of the profiteering stereotype, but businesses investing in partnership with Government.

We continue to break records in renewable energy, which has more than quadrupled since 2010, with low-carbon electricity overall now giving us more than 50% of our total generation. It would have been nice to hear Members at least pay tribute to that achievement, rather than attack the profiteering businesses that have been at the frontline of delivering it.

We have installed 90% of our solar capacity in this country since 2010, which is enough for 3 million homes. That has happened—

[Margaret Greenwood]

Will the Minister give way?

[George Freeman]

No, I am going to make some progress.

That capacity has happened by harnessing the power of the market. I do not think anyone would suggest we have had an untrammelled free market. I am not here to make that case; others may. It has been a partnership of the private and public sector. That is why the Government continue to believe in properly regulated markets.

I have written and spoken widely about the opportunity Brexit gives us to set our own regulatory standards—not in a race to the bottom, but in a race to the top—and to set the standards in the smart grid, in digital energy and in new forms of energy. There is a huge opportunity for us to use that freedom to incentivise private capital to invest in the energy system, provide the best outcomes for consumers, and promote market competition as the drivers of efficiency, innovation and value.

My party believes profoundly that private ownership of energy assets, properly regulated, improves performance and reliability, and offers consumers greater choice and higher standards of products and services. No market is perfect. There are always pay-offs and balances, but it is very difficult to see how nationalisation would work, particularly as it has been set out this afternoon, with no detail, vague assumptions that there will be lots of money, which would come in the end only from taxation or borrowing, and very little understanding of how it would be done. Anyone listening to this debate has not heard a serious proposal for how nationalisation would happen. They have simply heard a ragtag of arguments against the private sector and against business.

The argument becomes even more important when we look at the global market and the international energy market in which we find ourselves. These days, no energy market exists in isolation. We do not exist in a vacuum. The pandemic and the war in Ukraine have revealed painfully the interdependence of our global energy supplies. We are not in a position where we can unilaterally declare independence from the global markets. Any renationalised energy company would still have to buy its gas on the global market at the same price—there is no way round that. But it does heighten the urgency of reducing our dependency on foreign actors, hostile states and those who might use their energy power to exercise geopolitical influence on us.

We are absolutely committed, as we have set out, to diversifying our energy supply and resilience. We understand that sky-high global energy prices, caused by Russia’s appalling invasion of Ukraine, are having real consequences for consumer bills across the country, exacerbating the consequences of the pandemic shutdown of the global economy and its refiring up and opening, which has driven inflation into the system. European gas prices soared by more than 200% last year, and coal prices by more than 100%, leading to an inevitable increase in the cost of energy, which drives the cost of living across our economy.

That is why, through our British energy security strategy, we are absolutely committed to—and are already implementing—support for diverse sources of home-grown energy to provide greater energy security in the longer term. Let me unpack that: we have set out, first, a comprehensive long-term plan, just as today’s motion calls for, to 2050 for our energy system in 2020’s 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution and the energy White Paper. It needed doing and it has been done. Secondly, the British energy security strategy, published in April this year, charts a pathway to reducing our vulnerability to international energy prices by reducing our dependence on imported oil and gas.

We will achieve our ambitions by accelerating the deployment of wind, solar and new nuclear energy, supercharging our production of low-carbon hydrogen, and within my portfolio supporting next-generation energy sources including fusion and small modular nuclear. We will support North sea oil and gas in the near term for security of supply, and the important work that is being done in Scotland, particularly on the North sea transition, to turn that infrastructure into the infrastructure for clean, green energy.

Thirdly, we will ensure a more flexible and efficient system for both generators and users, undertaking our comprehensive view of electricity market arrangements to ensure that consumers fully benefit from the next phase of our energy transformation. That is why we have committed to publishing, with Ofgem, a strategic framework this year on how networks will deliver net zero. Fourthly, not only are we thinking about reforming energy supply, but we have an ambitious programme of energy efficiency measures to lower demand, and to bring down bills and emissions.

Nationalisation, however, will not solve or help to tackle those challenges, for a number of reasons. First, as I have said, nationalised energy companies would still have to buy gas on the international markets. There is no price reduction that comes with being nationalised. Secondly, if a Labour Government, or perhaps more likely a Labour-SNP-Lib Dem coalition, who were committed to renationalisation came into office, their measures would mean that the British taxpayer would have to compensate directors, shareholders and creditors to the tune of tens of billions of pounds—money that would otherwise be spent on schools, hospitals and public services. Thirdly, the sort of nationalisation that has been talked about blithely but not explained would hugely damage our ability to attract the international investment that I have set out, which is key to delivering net zero.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margaret Greenwood]

I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being very generous with his time. Recent reports have shown that a lot of people on prepayment meters are not taking up the support. What steps can his Government take to make sure that 100% of people can take up the support that they need, because my big concern is that the most vulnerable people will struggle in this situation?

[George Freeman]

The hon. Lady makes an important point about the particular circumstances of those people on prepayment meters and those who are most prone to energy poverty and vulnerability. Again, I am not the energy Minister so, with permission, I will allow the Minister for Climate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness, to follow up that point with her.

This is a long journey. It is one that we, as a country, started on a little late, but we have led the world in moving at pace, and that is a tribute to all the parties involved, to be fair. The last Labour Government before 2010 began some important measures; we in the coalition took things forward; and the Conservative Governments have pursued things at pace since. I believe that we are on the road to success and I have no doubt that consumers will be at the heart of Government policy every step of the way.

Right now, that means we are focused on doing all we can to support consumers through the very difficult winter ahead, but nationalisation is not the right solution. I will just say that it has been rather extraordinary for me this afternoon to see how strongly the old anti-capitalist politics of the hard left have been shown to continue to thrive in the Labour party and the Scottish National party. We have heard aeons about anti-business millionaires and profiteering, and there has been no talk about companies generating the profits that drive dividends that supply pensioners with revenue, or public sector workers with their pensions, or, for that matter, the trade unions with their pensions.

We have heard nothing serious from the SNP about how it would pay for independence, which has traditionally been based—on its own assumptions—on the revenues from oil and gas. The SNP is anti-nuclear—it appears to be anti-everything that will score a point—but there is no serious and costed plan for how Scotland could be in the vanguard of the new energy economy. The Liberal Democrats, who are not present here today in Westminster Hall, have described Labour’s policy of nationalisation as “pointless and costly”.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 25th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kim Johnson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and I will be touching on that point. Others have mentioned today the rights that will be attacked. With all that in mind, how could this Bill be anything other than an unmitigated disaster? Equal pay, maternity and paternity rights, the 48-hour working week, minimum rest periods and holiday pay, to name but a few, are all on the table to be put on the scrapheap—and that’s not even the half of it. Can the Minister tell us where in the 2019 Conservative party manifesto it says that the Government intend to scrap all that? People in this country did not vote for this. Work will become more dangerous and yet more insecure.

This Bill is being driven forward by a small number of ideologues who are hellbent on discarding basic rights and protections, driving a reckless race to the bottom for workers. Hidden in this Bill are sunset clauses: provisions to create a countdown for the expiry of vital workplace protections by December next year. That means that by the time the festive season comes around next year, holiday pay could be off the table.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is giving a powerful speech, as she always does. She is talking about the sunset on retained EU law, causing most of it to expire by the end of 2023, handing over to the Executive immense powers to do whatever they wish. She is making a powerful case about the impact of that on workers’ rights. The Institute for Public Policy Research has raised the concern that this will create extraordinary uncertainty for businesses and workers, as well as the prospect of legal chaos. Does she agree that in recent weeks the Conservative Government have caused huge uncertainty for businesses and that this simply will not help?

[Kim Johnson]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point about the disruption that this Government have caused in the past couple of weeks and months. This is a zombie Government clinging to power in order to push through their destructive agenda. They are running scared from the people they are supposed to represent. They have no mandate, no plan to meet the challenges of the cost of living crisis and nothing to offer working people.

The Bill places our rights at work, our environment and our hard-won equal rights on a cliff edge, left to the mercy of Tory Ministers. The economy is on the floor, with the cost of living crisis set to cost thousands of lives this winter. We need a stable economy with a significant redistribution of wealth and power more than ever. I wish to appeal to the Conservative Members opposite: it is within your gift to stop this deeply destructive Bill and the threats it poses to your constituents. You are facing some of the lowest polling your party has ever seen. Your economic credibility is in the bin. After 12 years of Tory austerity—

Ban on Fracking for Shale Gas Bill

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

The Government must ban fracking once and for all. It is an outdated, dangerous and expensive way to produce energy. It will not provide the clean, secure energy that our country needs, nor will it help us to meet our legally binding commitment to net zero. As Friends of the Earth has pointed out, fracking risks contaminating water, it poses risks to public health and the environment and it is unlikely to reduce energy bills. The Government’s written statement of November 2019 said that the moratorium on fracking would

“be maintained until compelling new evidence is provided which addresses the concerns around the prediction and management of induced seismicity.”—[Official Report, 4 November 2019; Vol. 667, c. 56WS.]

Likewise, the Conservative party manifesto of 2019, on which Members opposite stood and were elected, said:

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

Nothing has changed, and I ask the Minister to explain what he thinks has.

The recent report by the British Geological Survey found:

“Forecasting the occurrence of large earthquakes and their expected magnitude remains a significant challenge for the geoscience community.”

Recently, the Secretary of State has said that

“tolerating a higher degree of risk and disturbance appears to us to be in the national interest”.—[Official Report, 22 September 2022; Vol. 719, c. 40WS.]

So it appears that as well as being reckless the with economy, the Government are being reckless with the environment and the health and safety of communities. The Climate Change Committee has made it clear that moving away from fossil fuel consumption will both benefit households, as it will reduce exposure to volatile fossil fuel prices, and reduce emissions.

The Government speak of consent, but reports that households could be handed £1,000 to consent to fracking in their area are of real concern. Greenpeace has rightly labelled that as a cynical ploy and said that the Government must be hoping they

“can buy off people’s concerns while they are struggling with the cost of living crisis.”

There currently exists a petroleum exploration and development licence, PEDL 184, covering an area of north-west England that includes my constituency. The licence allows a company to pursue a range of oil and gas exploration activities, subject to the necessary drilling and development consents and planning permission.

No wonder my constituents are worried. They have made it abundantly clear that they do not want to see fracking. We on these Benches will stand up for our constituents today and oppose fracking. The Members opposite should stand by their manifesto commitment and do the same.

Shale Gas Extraction

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The United Kingdom Internal Market Act is like the Koh-i-Noor diamond; it is one of the jewels of our constitutional settlement.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

My constituents will be extremely alarmed to hear the Minister’s remarks about the exploitation of dangerous fossil fuels. They have made it abundantly clear to me that they care about the environment, they care about the next generation, and they take climate change seriously, so I ask him, on behalf of my constituents: will he think again and ban fracking?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady refers to dangerous fossil fuels that people depend on for heating their water and their homes every day, that businesses depend on for being in business, and that people put in their cars to get around the countryside. We need to ensure that we have a sensible transition. Gas is fundamental to that. Simply wishing the world to be a different world will not be a successful policy.

Energy Prices: Support for Business

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman, as so often, raises a serious point. We are very conscious of the issues facing social housing landlords, particularly those with rather older housing stock that is the least energy efficient. There are important things to be done to help them make their housing more efficient, and there have been schemes available to do that. I am not sure I can promise a visit, but I would be delighted to discuss the matter with him further.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

Care homes in my constituency are facing soaring energy costs, as I am sure the Secretary of State will be aware. Care homes look after frail and vulnerable people, and it is essential that they are kept warm. I note his comments thus far on care homes, but can he assure us that there will be a real focus on ensuring their ongoing financial viability?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

This is of fundamental concern to His Majesty’s Government.

Energy Update

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

The hon. Gentleman is tempting me to go down the road of Her Majesty’s Treasury announcements on tax and other matters, which I am afraid I will have to resist doing. I think he will hear before too long what the Government propose to do on these vital matters.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

People are really frightened about how they are going to get through this winter. One of my constituents, who is a widow with long-term health issues, has written to me to say that she will have to cancel insurance for her pets—so if her pet becomes ill she will not be able to take them to the vet—and will get rid of her car, which is vital for her to get to medical appointments. She says that her gas and electricity bill was originally about £85 a month, but she has now received a direct debit statement saying that it will go up to more than £255 a month; her energy costs will basically triple. She is terrified about how she will manage this winter, as are many of my constituents. Will the Minister give us an assurance that he will impress on the new Prime Minister the scale of the catastrophe we face if the Government do not come forward with a major increase in support for people facing these bills?

[Greg Hands]

I am concerned to hear about the hon. Lady’s constituent. Indeed, many of all our constituents are facing difficulties and prospective difficulties at this time. In relation to her constituent’s car, the Government have reduced fuel duty at the cost of about £5 billion to the Exchequer, and that will help people to run their cars. We are acutely aware of the difficulties faced by consumers, but we have risen to the challenge. The £37 billion package announced for this year so far is a considerable amount of public spending to help consumers with bills, and there will be more to come.