Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Barry Gardiner

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 13th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Barry Gardiner.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

In the interest of moving to the vote, I will not speak.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

In which case we come to the Minister, with the leave of the House.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Barry Gardiner

Committee stage
Monday 30th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[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

Debate between Nigel Evans and Barry Gardiner

2nd reading
Monday 16th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[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.

Energy Prices Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Barry Gardiner

Committee stage
Monday 17th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[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?

Covid-19: Dental Services

Debate between Nigel Evans and Barry Gardiner

Thursday 14th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab) [V]]

The Book of Proverbs says:

“Confidence in an unfaithful man in time of trouble is like a broken tooth.”

We are in a time of trouble and there are lots of broken teeth. While I make no aspersions about the fidelity of the Prime Minister, I can tell him that confidence in his Government, even before covid, was already at an all-time low with the dentists I speak to in Brent. There has been a total lack of investment in dental laboratories, a failure to recruit and train dental technicians, flawed dental contracts and chronic underfunding.

My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) has lucidly set out the key demands of the British Dental Association: abandon the activity targets; support practices to increase the number of patients they can see safely; prioritise access to the vaccine; safeguard the supplies of PPE; and extend the business rates holidays to dentists. I will not rehearse and repeat her excellent arguments; I want to give voice to the frustration felt by the dentists who continue to serve my constituents in Brent so well.

The BDA has catalogued the failure to properly communicate with the public, but what I had not appreciated until I spoke with my local dental committee is just how poor the Government’s communication with dentists themselves had been. I quote from their letters. One said that

“dental services have often been treated as an afterthought with no understanding of the NHS contract imposed on the profession. Dental practitioners found out in May on the news, at the same time as patients that they were to reopen in June…The panic and frustration this caused is deplorable. Dental practices, despite being high risk because of the aerosol generating procedures, were not able to access PPE from the Government portal until September and the vital FFP3 masks were not added to that until November. It is clear that little thought, if any, had been given to dentists and their teams.”

One dentist wrote:

“When on the 8th June our high street practices in England were allowed to resume face-to-face care, the reality of what a new normal might look like hit…fallow time means the number of patients able to be seen is significantly reduced. It was anything but ‘business as usual’. I ask myself, at this time, what would be the worst thing to impose on dental practices? Very high up on my list would be precisely what the government has decided to impose—targets. The emphasis on targets from the NHS clearly prioritises a metric and finance over patient interest. To achieve targets, footfall would have to increase and non-urgent patients be prioritised.”

My local dental committee tells me:

“Many practices are already finding the conflicting strain too much, and this comes on top of the emotional and physical drain of wearing full PPE for hours every day…The imposition of a target at this time serves no purpose whatsoever other than to destabilise, perhaps terminally, NHS dental provision, and to demoralise an already exhausted profession further.”

Covid-19 has been felt most severely by those who were already more likely to have poor health outcomes—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Sorry, Barry; we are going to have to leave it there because we have run out of time. I will call James Wild next, and then hopefully we will get Scott Mann back on the line.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between Nigel Evans and Barry Gardiner

Wednesday 20th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Socrates called it eudaemonia—living well. He thought of it as the ultimate arete or virtue. In some respects, that is what Budget day is all about: how we can allocate the nation’s resources so that more people can live well. However, when Socrates spoke of eudaemonia, he would never have confused it with prosperity. He thought of it as a state of human flourishing. The Chancellor clearly thinks of it as mere human affluence.

Well-being may be a function of economic activity, but if so, it is not a direct or simple one. One need only reflect that a specific loss of income is much more damaging to well-being than the corresponding gain is beneficial to it. The bedroom tax that reduces my constituents’ incomes has a far greater impact on their well-being negatively than a corresponding tax credit would have positively. That is because other concepts such as security, equality and justice really do matter. For human beings to live well—to flourish—we require all of those.

Our economy must therefore be structured to provide not just so-called flexibility of the labour force, but security of employment. It must minimise the inequality between the bankers’ million-pound bonuses and the savers at risk of losing part of their life savings to bail out Mediterranean countries. It must explain the justice of someone earning £150,000 still getting £1,200 per child in child care, when a mother in my constituency who cannot find more than 15 hours of work a week gets none.

A good Budget is not just about the distribution of national wealth; it is about the management of society’s resources to enable its citizens to flourish as one nation. On that measure, today’s Budget has failed. Today’s Budget is the Budget of a Chancellor who has painted himself into a corner and then run out of paint. He has been wedded to austerity so obstinately and for so long that when he finally is seduced by the noble Lord Heseltine to share an illicit tryst with growth, he lacks the wherewithal to invest properly.

This Chancellor has been wedded not to prudence, but to patience. Year on year, we have been told that the prospect of economic growth and recovery has receded once more over the horizon, always remaining just four years away. In 2010, he forecast that by today, the economy would have grown by 5.3%; it has grown by just 0.7%. In 2010, he forecast that his austerity plan would stop us going into a double-dip recession; we have been teetering on the brink of a triple dip. In 2010, he told us solemnly that austerity was the only way to avoid losing our triple A rating; we now know that it has helped us to lose it.

Believe no one else about this Chancellor. Judge him by his own words. Judge him by his own U-turns. Growth is lower, real wages are lower, public sector net borrowing is £212 billion more than he forecast and debt as a percentage of GDP is up to 76.8%, when he forecast that it would be 69.7%. The Government’s target of debt reduction by the end of this Parliament is now absolutely unachievable.

The real trouble with the Budget is not that it will fail to achieve its growth objective over the five-year cycle of the political process; it is that the five-year cycle itself bears scant relation to the cycles of the resources that we must manage if we are to create sustainable well-being for our citizens. The Chancellor has engaged in a civil war in this Government against any understanding of true stewardship of our natural resources. Oh yes, he can spot a domestic credit bubble in our housing market, but he is incapable of seeing the far greater danger of an annual global consumption of natural resources that it takes our planet one year and four months to replace. That is a credit bubble of terminal proportions not just for our economy, but for our species.

By the time a child born on this Budget day is eligible to vote, the world will require 45% more energy, 30% more fresh water and 50% more food. This child will be part of the generation that will see the global population move from 7 billion to 10 billion. How do we enable this child to flourish? Do we become the most selfish generation of the most selfish species in our planet’s history, or do we become the generation that understood that justice and sustainability are essentially the same thing? If we want peace in the world, we must create justice. If we want justice, we must live sustainably.

This Chancellor’s old mantra was cut, tax and grow, so what if he has changed it for Heseltine’s grow, tax and spend? If he has not learned that growth must be sustainable, it will all end up in the same mess. In a world of 7 billion people, growth can be sustainable only if it is predicated on advances that bring increased productivity and greater efficiency in the use of resource. For the world to continue to achieve a 3% per annum growth target and to maintain a trajectory that keeps carbon emissions below the 2° threshold, we must increase our productivity per tonne of carbon emitted 15 times over, yet this is the Chancellor who has fought tooth and nail to stop us having a decarbonisation target in the Energy Bill.

The Chancellor is oblivious to the argument, regardless of who makes it—friend or foe, politician or industry. Two weeks ago, six of the largest multinational investors in the UK infrastructure wrote to him. Mitsubishi, Alstom, Doosan, Gamesa, Vestas and Areva have interests that span gas, clean coal, carbon capture and storage, nuclear and renewables. They told the Chancellor of their strong support for the early introduction of the 2030 decarbonisation target and warned:

“We are already close to the point where lack of a post-2020 market driver will seriously undermine project pipelines.”

They explained that supply chain investment decisions depend on reasonable assurances from manufacturers that a production facility built this decade at a cost of millions will have an adequate market for its products well into the 2020s. They told him:

“Postponing the 2030 target decision until 2016 creates entirely avoidable political risk. This will slow growth in the low carbon sector, handicap the UK supply chain, reduce UK R and D and produce fewer new jobs.”

The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), who chairs the Treasury Committee, began the debate from the Back Benches with the extraordinary claim that low-carbon policies are exporting jobs and that green measures are adding 20% to our fuel bills. He should know that energy efficiency measures cost 15%, not 20%, of our energy bills and that the low-carbon sector has provided one third of all economic growth in the UK and is our fastest growing sector, creating thousands of new jobs. The Chancellor and his friends need to begin to recognise that green growth is the surest way through our economic problems, not the contributor to them. Fundamental to that is an understanding of sustainability. Last year, the EEF manufacturers’ body sounded a warning about the risk—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order.

Ash Dieback Disease

Debate between Nigel Evans and Barry Gardiner

Monday 12th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), who made many of the points I wished to make.

Serious and genuine questions need answering about the genesis of Chalara fraxinea in the UK. Did the Horticultural Trades Association warning in 2009 go unheeded by DEFRA officials? Were Ministers made aware of that warning? When they were informed on 3 April of the infection in Buckinghamshire, why did they not impose a movement ban? When Crowders nursery in Lincolnshire notified officials in June this year that the disease was found in 15 of its trees, did DEFRA officials really issue it with a notice to stop it taking action? Did they put trade rules above environmental health? When the disease began to take hold in Poland in 1992 and other parts of continental Europe later on, did the EU take adequate steps to regulate and control its spread?

Is it credible to claim that wind-blown spores reached the UK from across the sea, from Denmark, given that scientific advice states that wind-blown spores can spread 20 to 30 km per year and that local spread may be via wind, rain, splash or even transmission by insects, but that over longer distances the risk of disease spread is most likely to be through the movement of diseased ash plants? Given that the UK introduced national measures to prevent the entry and spread of the disease on October 29, why did it claim that it could not do so to nurseries and growers previously? Did UK nurseries that became aware of the danger of Chalara fraxinea then stop importing seedlings from suppliers in infected countries, or did they rely on Government advice, rather than their own trade association?

All those questions will no doubt eventually be answered, and no doubt not all of them without embarrassment to politicians, officials and the industry. My focus today, however, is on examining the response that the Government must make to the increasing threat that our landscape and biodiversity face from climate change and the new vectors of disease that climate change has brought with it. In its excellent report published earlier this year, the Independent Panel on Forestry specifically addressed the need

“to see our wooded landscapes, in both rural and urban settings, being better protected from, and more resilient to future risks such as climate change, pests and diseases.”

It specifically recommends that the Government

“should speed up delivery of the Tree Health and Plant Biosecurity Action Plan by additional investment in research on tree and woodland diseases, resilience and biosecurity controls.”

The key question arises: have they speeded up the delivery of the action plan? I remind the House that the body meant to examine this was set up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), the Secretary of State for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in 2010. The key diseases and pest identified at that time were sudden oak death syndrome, oak processionary moth and Phytophthora ramorum in larch. I believe that Chalara fraxinea was mentioned only as a disease predominantly in Europe that might manifest itself in the UK.

Perhaps one of the more foolish cutbacks imposed by the Government has been the freeze on public information spending. I ask the Minister how on earth the Government propose to combat infectious diseases in plant health if they constrain their own ability to communicate directly with growers and the industry, and rely on the passive mechanism of their own website. It has been estimated that the changing risks arising from climate change and the new vectors of disease will result in a decline in timber yield in England of up to 35% by 2080, according to the Forestry Commission’s report “Climate Change Risk Assessment”, published in February.

In the past 12 months, the Forestry Commission has reported increasing incidence of Phytophthora lateralis, which attacks Lawson cypress, Phytophthora ramorum, which attacks beech and rhododendron—itself a non-native invasive species, but now a part of the UK landscape—acute oak decline and Cryphonectria parasitica, which affects sweet chestnut. To these diseases, we must add pests such as the Asian longhorn beetle in broadleaf woodland, the pine tree lappet moth on native heath land, and oak processionary moth in beech and hornbeam—to name only a few of the most serious new threats.

The number of outbreaks of these pests and diseases has risen more than twelvefold over the past 40 years. It is one thing to identify these risks to our landscape, but it is quite another to develop a mitigation and adaptation plan to combat the way in which they might impact on our biodiversity and on the ecosystem services that our forests provide. Such a plan will not be cheap. Last year in the United States, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s eradication programme for the Asian longhorn beetle alone cost US$33 million.

I urge the Government to understand that it is not enough to have a plan to tackle Chalara fraxinea. They must develop a framework in which all the new vectors of risk that threaten our landscape can be tackled. That means having a clear understanding of the value of the ecosystem services that our trees and forests provide. The Government must look to the national biodiversity action plan and the national ecosystem assessment for a blueprint for a comprehensive response. The key message of the UK national ecosystem assessment begins:

“The natural world, its biodiversity and its constituent ecosystems are critically important to our well-being and economic prosperity, but are consistently undervalued in conventional economic analyses and decision making.”

Natural capital has not been properly accounted for, and the services that our forests provide through provisioning, habitat for pollinators, watershed protection and soil stabilisation are considered—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order.

Amendment of the Law

Debate between Nigel Evans and Barry Gardiner

Wednesday 21st March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner]

The hon. Gentleman precisely misconstrues my point; the issue is not about the amount of aid given to developing countries, but about understanding the valuation of natural capital and incorporating that into the Government’s accounting framework. That is in the natural environment White Paper, if he cares to read it.

In a world of 7 billion people, growth can be sustainable only if it is predicated on advances that bring increased productivity and greater efficiency in the use of resources. That is what Hayek would have called a sound capital structure and proper allocation of capital. For the world to continue to achieve a 3% per annum growth target, and to maintain a trajectory that keeps carbon emissions below the 2°C threshold of dangerous climate change, we must increase our productivity per tonne of carbon emitted 15 times over.

The Budget simply does not address that technological challenge. It was extraordinary to see the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change join forces with the Treasury last Friday evening and issue a press release at 6 pm, embargoed until midnight, to exempt gas-fired power stations from the emissions controls set out in the fourth carbon budget by the Committee on Climate Change. Those emissions reductions were, in the Committee’s view, part of the necessary regulatory framework for achieving our target of at least 80% emissions reductions by 2050.

The press release set out no alternative mechanisms that would be adopted to keep to those targets and no Minister has sought to expand on the issue since last week. It is a measure of the shame that the Government felt on reneging on the fourth carbon budget that they issued their press release in such a furtive manner. What is worse, what happened shows that the new Energy Secretary has no command over his brief and has been fingered by the Treasury as a weak Secretary of State.

Since William Ewart Gladstone instituted the modern accounting and budgetary processes of the House of Commons 150 years ago, modern economics has come a long way in its understanding of capital. In Gladstone’s day, the notion of capital was very simple; it represented money and machinery. Gradually, we have come to realise that capital is not just money and plant. We have developed sophisticated concepts of social and intellectual capital. We know that a well functioning legal system is very much a part of the wealth of a society, inviting commerce and trade to practise where certainty and redress prevail. That is certainly a form of capital different from a bridge, printing press or motorway, but we now measure them all in our assessment of the national wealth of a country.

Resource economists now point out that we have left out of our economic calculations perhaps the most important capital of all: natural capital. We have left it out for a very simple reason—we always took it for granted. We thought that it was a free good. It cost us nothing and we assumed the supply was infinite. In the language of classical economics, natural capital was a mere externality, “as free as the air you breathe”.

What we have now begun to realise is that the air we breathe is not actually free—at least, it is not without a quantifiable value. Any sound cost-benefit analysis of public policy must take that value into account. The Environmental Audit Committee report on air pollution estimated that the costs from air pollution are up to £20.2 billion. That is the cost of respiratory and other diseases associated with poor air quality, both in treatment and lost productivity.

The natural environment provides not just a physical stock of resources—forests and fish, minerals and fresh water that human beings depend on—but a network of services essential for human life. The pollination of our crops by insects, the stabilisation of our soil by trees and the regulation of our watershed by peat bogs are just some of the ecosystem services that a new economic model must begin to incorporate into our Government’s accounting framework. That new accounting renders inadequate the concept of GDP growth because it reveals one of the central conundrums of classical economics: that a country can become poorer while increasing its GDP.

The Chancellor said nothing today that showed that he understood that. Another important consideration is that those wider benefits, although immensely valuable, do not accrue to an individual private property owner; they are experienced by a community at large. They are regarded as free goods by the wider community, and in classical economics as externalities, and because they are not directly captured by a landowner they rarely feature in a landowner’s decision on how or whether to dispose of them. That is why the exercise of private property rights can often be to the public detriment. It is also why the role of the state in regulating the disposal of land is so important. Today we have heard much talk of stamp duty and how to raise revenue from the rich. It therefore seems quaint that no one has commented on the fact that the land registry for England, which was established in 1928, still accounts for only some 64% of the land in England, while in the registry for Scotland the figure drops to a mere 21%.

Of course, there is a reason why almost a century later we have not yet been able properly to map the title of land in the UK—it is that so much of it has never been sold but has been passed down in families, from parent to child, in enormous estates. If the Government genuinely want to raise tax from the very wealthy, they should examine not only houses sold for over £2 million but the vast tracts of our country that have been accumulated in great estates for centuries and are still owned and managed not for the benefit of the population at large but to maximise the income and pleasure of a very few private individuals. I do not claim that all hereditary estates are badly managed in respect of the environment, but I do claim that good management comes not only as a result of inheritance. Land tax reform is long overdue. If we wish to become a more equal society, then we need to consider the taxation of land and land use in different and more imaginative ways, for the benefit of society as a whole.

The Chancellor sought in his Budget to bury another important piece of environmental news. Next Tuesday, the new national planning policy framework is published. That deserves our attention not least because we know that the Chancellor takes the view that the planning system is a blockage to economic growth. The NPPF will cause havoc up and down the country as planning uncertainty and ambiguity filters down to local communities. Fundamental to the new framework is the presumption in favour of sustainable development. In practice, this means—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order.

Finance Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Barry Gardiner

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again; he is being extremely generous. I am delighted that he believes that this should not be about incentivising—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Please could the hon. Gentleman direct his comments through the Chair? That will also mean that I can hear what he is saying.

[Barry Gardiner]

My apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has said that this measure is not about incentivising marriage, or about penalising people. Can he therefore explain why, under the proposals, a woman with children who has recently been widowed would suffer a financial loss at precisely the time when the family needed the money the most? That seems to me to be a fundamental flaw in the proposals.