Budget Resolutions
Debate between Nigel Evans and Ed Davey(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech on behalf of children, parents and teachers across our country. Is she aware that, in the fine detail of the Budget, banks are getting a tax cut that is bigger than the increase announced today for catch-up funding? Does she agree that is the wrong priority?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. If people are going to intervene, they should at least have the good grace to come in a few speakers before.
UK Nuclear Energy Programme
Debate between Nigel Evans and Ed Davey
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Ind)
Many converts become zealots to the cause. May I encourage the Secretary of State to be turbo-charged in his zealotry for nuclear energy in the future so that we can have more announcements like today’s? Anything that makes us less reliant on imported energy, particularly French nuclear energy, has got to be a good thing, and anything that protects England’s green and pleasant land from the invasion of yet more wind turbines has got to be a good thing.
Mr Davey
The hon. Gentleman was doing so well. I have to tell him that there are zealots on all sides of this argument, as I have found, which is why I take, I think, a more balanced, pragmatic approach in favour of a mixed, diversified electricity supply focused on low carbon. I am a zealot not about nuclear, onshore or any particular renewable technology; I am a zealot about climate change. That is what every Member needs to be a zealot about. Climate change is one of the big challenges for this political generation, and we have to face up to it, so I plead guilty to being a zealot about tackling climate change.
Postal Services Bill
Debate between Nigel Evans and Ed Davey
Mr Davey
Unlike the hon. Gentleman’s Government, we do not wish up new pots of money left, right and centre. Of course it is in the BIS settlement.
The Opposition made much of one point tonight. Apart from their ideological contortions over ownership, they have tried to suggest that separating Royal Mail from the Post Office will somehow be the catalyst for post office closures. Let me explain why they are wrong.
First, a privately owned Royal Mail will not act against its own commercial interests. It will not give up valued retail space in the heart of communities the length and breadth of Britain, creating a vacuum that its competitors would gratefully fill. To think otherwise one would have to be living on Planet Consignia. Have Members heard of Planet Consignia? It is where the previous Government once tried to place Royal Mail. This Government, along with most people in Britain, understand the value and tradition of royalty, and will not make such daft mistakes.
Secondly, Royal Mail has made it clear that the current long-term commercial contract between Royal Mail and post offices will continue. Only this week, the chief executive of Royal Mail, Moya Greene, told me that
“the support that the Government is giving to Post Offices Ltd should mean that the Post Office should become an even stronger retail channel for Royal Mail.”
She went on to say that it was “unthinkable” that there would not be a strong relationship between the Post Office and Royal Mail in the future.
Thirdly, if the Opposition are seriously saying the Government should write into the Bill that there should be a statutory permanent contractual relationship between Royal Mail and the Post Office, they would be risking not only a legal challenge from competitors, but setting the Post Office in aspic. Do they not realise that as Royal Mail’s letter volumes decline, so too will the mail business for the Post Office, so it needs to be given the opportunity to build new revenues? Do they not realise that new sources of revenue will be critical if we are to achieve a financially viable post office network?
I have a confession. I am a postal anorak. Before having the honour of being elected to the House in 1997, I was a management consultant and I specialised in postal companies. I worked on projects for Royal Mail’s equivalents in Taiwan, South Africa, Belgium and Sweden. Although I co-authored a report for the US Postal Service to put to Congress on the commercialisation and liberalisation of postal companies and markets around the world, I have to disappoint the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont); I never worked on a privatisation programme—[Interruption.] Regrettably. Back then, in 1997—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I cannot hear the Minister, which means that the House cannot hear him either. The Minister must be heard.
Mr Davey
In 1997, Royal Mail was a company that could hold its own with most postal administrations around the world. It needed reform and it needed investment, but it was not balance sheet insolvent or loss-making and it was not as fragile as it is today.
Mr Deputy Speaker, what happened between 1997 and 2010? I will tell you. There was dereliction of duty by the Labour Government, on a massive scale. There were post office closures, lack of investment in Royal Mail and the pension deficit ballooned.
This Government will not shirk our responsibilities. We will take the tough decisions. We will invest in the Post Office. We will free Royal Mail for the investment it needs. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Lawful Industrial Action (Minor Errors) Bill
Debate between Nigel Evans and Ed Davey
Mr Deputy Speaker
I am listening to what the Minister has to say, and if I consider that he is out of order, I will certainly call him to order. However, I know that he will want to relate his comments more directly to the Bill.
Mr Davey
I certainly intend to do that, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I hoped it would help the House if I set out some of the context of the debate. I think that people sometimes have amnesia when it comes to what actually happened in the past.
It is worth reminding Opposition Members that the laws we have today relate not only to the laws passed in the 1980s and 1990s, but to the changes in those laws made by the last Government. My hon. Friends made it very clear that the last Government reviewed and made changes to this very part of our law, and did not adopt changes such as those that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington is trying to persuade the House to support today. They did not want to make any significant changes to the law on ballots and notices. Indeed, the last change of any substance that they made was in 2004. That is probably why the hon. Member for Llanelli was unable to support the Bill. She and the hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe)—when he was doing the job that I am doing now—examined the law extremely closely, and found no case for changing it.
It has hardly been a secret that trade unions wanted to extend the disregard in section 232B, but I presume that when the last Government examined the law, they decided not to listen to those trade union voices. I am pleased to observe the consistency in the position adopted by the hon. Member for Llanelli. Successive Governments have taken the view that the legal framework of our industrial relations law is basically sound, and this coalition Government certainly share that view.
Mr Davey
That is indeed my interpretation. I may have glossed over it because the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends made a clear analysis of that point in their contributions. I therefore felt that he had already grasped it, as he does so readily.
We strongly oppose removing the requirement for an error to be accidental. The suggested new disregard would apply to situations in which a union had deliberately denied members the entitlement to vote. It could also apply to a situation in which the union pressurised or coerced some individuals to vote in particular ways. Such behaviours are inexcusable, even if they were to occur on a small scale. They would undermine the democratic principles on which the current law is based. The Government cannot support a provision that could allow such democratic abuse to be excused. We have serious difficulties with the proposal to reverse the burden of proof—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Mr. Skinner, your sedentary remarks can easily be heard from the Chair, and that should not be the case.