Shale Gas Exploration: Planning Permission

Ruth George Excerpts

Wednesday 12th September 2018 Westminster Hall

[Claire Perry]

I am sorry, but I did begin by saying to my hon. Friend that I could not comment on individual planning applications. The purpose of the consultation is to get as many views as possible, particularly from those who are engaged in the planning process, about what the rights should look like. The floor is open for my hon. Friend to express his views, and all the things he has said today will be fed into the consultations.

[Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)]

A vast majority of respondents to the consultation on the national planning policy framework were opposed to fracking, as the Government’s own response set out, yet you are going ahead regardless. How can anyone have faith in any consultation process that this Government launch on fracking?

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Order. Before the Minister resumes, the hon. Lady has said that I am going ahead, but I am not—the Minister is.

[Claire Perry]

You are a master of restraint as always, Mr Howarth. The hon. Lady has been in politics for a while, and she will know, as we all do, the click-and-paste nature of so many responses to consultations.

[Ruth George]

indicated dissent.

[Claire Perry]

The hon. Lady shakes her head, but she should check the number of responses she will get. As I have set out, based on the public polling data, the vast majority of people do not have a particular view on this issue. Many people understand, especially after the “beast from the east” and the Salisbury poisoning, that being reliant on foreign energy sources is not a great place for us. If the hon. Lady shares my faith in the Committee on Climate Change and its view that gas is an important part of a low-carbon future, she will know that many responses come from organisations that are profoundly opposed to ever burning a molecule of fossil fuel. That is not a sensible place for our energy policy to be in.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth George Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)]

Evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee on the operation of the minimum income floor for small businesses under universal credit stated that the percentage of small businesses surviving the first 15 months would fall from 70% to less than 20%. What representations has the Department had with the Department for Work and Pensions to support the growth of enterprise and small businesses?

[Richard Harrington]

We have many and regular meetings at all levels with the Department for Work and Pensions on that subject, but the hon. Lady is right: starting small businesses is very difficult and it always has been. Some of them survive and some do not, and some go on to be extremely successful larger businesses. She is right to be concerned about the amount of support that government, local and national, give them, and I can assure her that it is at the top of our agenda.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

John Whittingdale—not here.

[Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)]

Eight months ago I told the House that the aim of our industrial strategy was to create prosperous communities throughout the country, and since our last questions session we have implemented that strategy across the United Kingdom.

Last month, at the international business festival in Liverpool, we announced £1.3 billion of investment in the next generation of research and innovation talent. I travelled to Trawsfynydd, in north Wales, to launch the nuclear sector deal, which will drive down energy costs for consumers. In Newcastle, as part of the Great Exhibition of the North, we launched our construction sector deal, aiming to cut build time by 50%. At the same time, the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) was in Grimsby, helping to unveil stage 1 of a landmark town deal.

Just yesterday I was at the Farnborough air show, where the Prime Minister announced £343 million of investment in civil aerospace, and we announced a new era of space flights in the UK, with a vertical satellite launch site at Sutherland and support for the development of horizontal launch sites at Newquay, Snowdonia and Prestwick.

[Ruth George]

Businesses in my constituency say that they need exactly the same regulations as those that apply in the European Union so that they can continue to compete with competitors for EU custom. What is the Department doing to ensure that, not just now but in the future, there will be no regulatory divergence and no undercutting of British firms?

[Greg Clark]

A big part of the White Paper is the commitment to a common rulebook. Our sophisticated supply chains allow goods to be sold throughout the European Union, and businesses have made it clear that they want to continue to do that after Brexit, which is why they have welcomed the White Paper so warmly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth George Excerpts

Tuesday 1st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Mr Sam Gyimah)]

The Government have created the £10 million degree apprenticeship development fund to support the development of infrastructure across England and to raise awareness of apprenticeships, among other aims. A degree apprenticeships website has been created by the National Apprenticeship Service and UCAS to highlight vacancies.

[Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)]

T10. Businesses in my constituency are extremely concerned that they will see more bureaucracy when we move out of the European Union. What is the Department doing to make sure that the UK will continue to be part of the single euro payments area, and also the VAT information exchange system, which my local businesses say is absolutely vital to keep them being able to pay and do business?

Industrial Strategy

Ruth George Excerpts

Wednesday 18th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

The overall population of the UK is growing, as the hon. Gentleman knows. It is important that our immigration system is set in a sensible way that recognises the needs of the economy and the needs of our society, and that is the approach being taken.

I talked about grand challenges. Let me turn to another important aspect of the industrial strategy, which is, candidly, to address areas of historic relative weakness in the UK economy. I talked about our strengths, but it is well known to every Member of this House that for many years now our productivity performance has not been as good as that of some of our competitors, and since the financial crisis it has been slower to recover. In recent quarters we have seen an acceleration of productivity growth, but I think everyone would recognise that it is the responsibility of this House and those of us in government to act on the foundations of productivity, so that we can maximise the productive capacity of the economy. A big part of the consultation was to consider what we can do to drive up our productivity performance.

There are five areas in which clear commitments and progress are required across the whole economy—indeed, across society, to go back to the comments made by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden). This is not simply, if at all, in the gift of the Business Department. It requires a whole-country commitment to investing in the foundations of productivity. We have set out our plans and ideas on research and development, as I mentioned earlier. As new technologies are developed, the skills required by the workforce to make use of them clearly need to change as well. It is no good doing one if we do not do the other, so the skills element of the strategy is very important. It is important to recognise the different needs of different places, as I mentioned in response to an intervention from the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham).

We want to make sure that our business environment is not only competitive and open, but recognises the need to ensure that when companies start up—we have a great record of start-ups—they can attract the funding that they require to grow into medium and larger businesses. We want to make sure that the infrastructure on which our whole economy depends is competitive with the best in the world. Through the industrial strategy, we set out action across all five of those contributors to productivity.

[Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has not mentioned the principal foundation of productivity: the workers of Great Britain. Obviously, investment in those workers is absolutely key to making sure that they see that their own investment in their work and productivity will lead to substantive benefits for them and their families. The response to the joint inquiry by the Work and Pensions and Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committees into the Taylor review on modern employment practices kicks a lot of the action into the long grass and into consultation. Will the Minister please admit today that workers are the foundation of productivity and that they need the Government to commit to solid action?

[Greg Clark]

It is not a question of admitting to it—I want to boast of it. When I talk about our strengths and talents, those are the strengths of the people of the United Kingdom as workers, researchers and leaders of local economies. The prosperity of our economy is founded on our workforce. The hon. Lady is absolutely right to emphasise the importance of investment in people. I have mentioned investment in research and development, but it is important for her to reflect that much of that is about investment in people, making sure that we have research funding and opportunities for researchers so that we have brilliant individuals as well as physical infrastructure.

When it comes to investment in skills and the workforce generally, the hon. Lady is absolutely right. I have mentioned the importance of skills training. One thing that we and Members from across the UK know is that there are shortages in many parts of the country, particularly in engineering and technology skills. That is before we have the full benefit of the opportunities set out in the industrial strategy, which highlights and commits us to a long-term programme of upgrading not just investment—although that is important—but the prestige attached to technical qualifications in this country, and to emphasising the importance of that. There is, for example, nearly half a billion pounds of investment in teaching maths, digital and technical education.

I am pleased that the hon. Lady mentioned the Matthew Taylor review, because it is exactly the right kind of strategic approach that we should take. We know that new technology is changing the world of work and that it poses challenges to established ways of working. Rather than simply ignoring that and not addressing those changes, in commissioning Matthew Taylor to review the emerging economy we equipped ourselves with some very important reforms that Taylor himself advised we should consult carefully on. That consultation came from a review commissioned by the Government, who absolutely have the intention to deliver on its recommendations. The consultation is the way to proceed with legislation and regulation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

According to the Government’s own declaration, the industrial strategy sets out their plan to create an economy that will boost productivity and earning power throughout the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State has just presented a very rosy picture of his Department’s industrial strategy, but I am afraid those spectacles he is wearing may be a little bit rose-tinted.

The key questions that must be asked today are whether the strategy is working and whether it addresses the huge problems that our economy is facing. The first of those problems is productivity. I agree with the Secretary of State’s comments about investing in the foundations of productivity, but we have just seen the productivity figures for 2017, and they are not good. Two negative quarters were followed by two positive quarters of growth. The two quarters of growth were caused by GDP growth slowing, but hours worked slowing even further. In other words, productivity has increased through the worst possible means. Even incorporating the 2017 figures, the productivity growth that has taken place over the 10 years since the crash has been the worst since 1820, just after the Napoleonic wars.

The second problem is GDP stagnation. For the 60 years preceding the financial crash, rising GDP meant broadly rising living standards. When GDP rose, unemployment came down and wages went up. However, over the course of 2017, UK GDP growth was weaker than GDP growth in any other G7 nation, standing at 1.4% compared to a G7 average of 2.4%. The figures were 2.9% in Germany and 2.5% in France. The situation is not forecast to improve: yesterday the International Monetary Fund forecast that we would be the slowest in the G7 bar Italy over the next two years, and the OECD predicts that we will grow more slowly than France, Germany and the United States in both 2018 and 2019. Worse still, among major advanced economies since the crash, Britain is the only one to have grown slightly while real wages have fallen.

The third problem is wage stagnation. In real terms, average weekly earnings are lower now than they were in 2007, 10 years ago. Working people, particularly those on low to middle incomes, have suffered the worst decade for a generation in terms of living standards. That is unprecedented since at least the end of the second world war. The quality of work is also an issue, as we have heard from some of my hon. Friends. The Secretary of State lauded employment figures in his opening remarks, but he must acknowledge that insecure employment is rife. According to the TUC, there are 3.2 million people in insecure work—about one in 10—and the number has risen sharply over the last half-decade, by 27%.

The Government tried to paper over those bleak realities with rhetoric in their recent response to the Taylor review, but I am not as optimistic or as excited as the Secretary of State was when he responded to comments earlier. Launching four consultations, merely considering proposals, failing really to act on the review’s recommendations, and tweaking the law here and there is simply not good enough.

The fourth problem is uncertainty. Britain is facing an uncertain future—we are about to leave the European Union, and businesses are craving a deal that will put the economy and jobs first, with as much access to Europe as possible—but Europe aside, parts of our economic framework do not encourage certainty. Our takeover regime leaves many companies deeply uncertain about their future and prey to predatory and hostile takeovers. We have already heard about GKN today. Under our takeover laws, that fantastic manufacturing company was bought up by Melrose. It was clear that our takeover regime needed more teeth and more clarity, but I must add that even in that case the Government had grounds to intervene on matters of defence and still failed to act. As the Financial Times suggested recently, the failure to equip our takeover regime adequately may be partly why a great company such as Unilever decided to make its legal home the Netherlands. How many other companies will follow?

The fifth and final problem is inequality. Sadly, the UK is one of the most unequal countries in Europe in terms of household income. As the Resolution Foundation recently revealed, inequality is projected to increase after 2016-17. On some measures, it is projected to rise to record highs by 2023. Furthermore, there are clear inequalities between our regions and nations. The Institute for Public Policy Research Commission on Economic Justice has found that Britain is the most regionally imbalanced country in Europe.

All these problems are not just abstract, general issues; they have recently manifested themselves in concrete examples—a barometer of the health and efficacy of the Government’s industrial strategy going forward. We started this year with the insolvency of Carillion, but that is not an isolated example. Our retail sector shows signs of strain: Toys R Us has collapsed; Maplin has gone into administration; New Look is fighting to avoid it; and Carpetright is planning a company voluntary arrangement. Workers have also felt the pain of a stalling economy: in the last week alone, literally thousands of workers have been threatened with job losses at Jaguar Land Rover and Shop Direct, yet we have received no statement whatsoever from the Government on what they are doing to protect those jobs, so perhaps the Minister will outline in his summing-up speech the action he is taking.

[Ruth George]

I met many businesses in my constituency last week. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that several of them are already having to move trade to EU countries because they are worried about the cost of a visa system when they cannot guarantee that they will hang on to the staff they pay for, the ending of preferential tariffs at the EU rate—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Lady is not making a speech; she is also taking away from the time for other Members.

Taylor Review

Ruth George Excerpts

1st reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 7th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffiths]

I thank the hon. Lady for that question, and for the work that the Scottish Affairs Committee has done. We took a great deal of interest in that work, which raised some very interesting points. She raises the issue in relation to Scotland. Our focus is clear: we are delivering on the commitments—the 52 commitments—in the Matthew Taylor report, and we will be doing so as a matter of urgency.

[Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)]

While I am sure that millions of low-paid workers will welcome the fact that the Government are going to issue four consultations, they may well be more concerned that the Government’s own impact assessment on our leaving the European Union included the assumption that employment rights would be deregulated. Will the Minister tell the House which employment rights were included in the assessment, and whether the Government will make an ongoing commitment to maintain at least current employment rights?

[Andrew Griffiths]

I am sorry, but the hon. Lady clearly missed the three times I have said in response to this urgent question that not only are the Government committed to maintaining employment rights as they are currently set out, but we are going further in extending rights and protections to millions more workers. As a result of what we are doing by taking forward the brilliant work of Matthew Taylor, we will have employment protection that is not just as a good as in the rest of Europe, but the best in the world.

Budget Resolutions

Ruth George Excerpts

1st reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 28th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I am conscious that many Members want to speak and the hon. Gentleman is tempting me into a discussion that would take more time than I have. However, our future as a successful economy is about trading more with Europe and the rest of the world. That should be free of tariffs and free of friction, and that is what we want to achieve through our negotiations.

None of the investment in and improvement to the productive capacity of the economy would be possible without a fundamentally strong economy. The essential foundation of future prosperity is to be a place in which global investors can have confidence. It is sometimes easy to take for granted the progress that was made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and his predecessor in rescuing the economy from the catastrophic situation in which we found it when the Labour party left office. Britain had its largest deficit as a share of GDP since the second world war. So reckless had the Labour Government been with the public finances that in their last year in office—almost unbelievably—for every £5 of Government spending, £1 had to be borrowed. Unemployment rose by nearly half a million, the welfare bill ballooned and the number of households who had never worked had doubled. If we had continued on that course, Britain’s reputation as a dependable place for global investors to entrust their assets would have been lost, and it would have taken many generations to recover.

As a result of the steady and painstaking work of the British people, however, backed by the leadership of Conservative Members, we have cut the deficit by three quarters at the same time as cutting income tax for 30 million people. Britain has been one of the job creation hotspots of the world, with employment up by 3 million in just seven years and unemployment lower than at any point since 1975. However, just when the deficit is being tamed and we can look forward to falling national debt, which has to be repaid by future generations, the Labour party—I hope it will contradict me—has adopted a platform that is even more extreme than the policies that produced the previous situation. Labour’s proposal is to borrow an extra quarter of a trillion pounds. As if that were not enough, it also wants to increase taxation to what the Institute for Fiscal Studies has called the highest peacetime level in the history of this country. That would, as the IFS also said, make the UK a

“less attractive place to invest”.

It is no wonder that the reaction of employers the length and breadth of Britain has been one of alarm. The chief executive of the EEF said that those policies are from a bygone era. Do they have credibility? The answer is clearly no.

[Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Greg Clark]

I am about to conclude.

If we want a strong, competitive economy that is fit for the future, we need to live within our means, create good jobs and pay people well. We need to be a beacon of free trade and internationalism. That is what our industrial strategy and this Budget are about. Prosperity for all is the best alternative to the high-tax, anti-enterprise, job-destroying ideology that has taken over the Opposition Front Bench. Our Budget takes us into the future; the Labour party takes us into the past. I commend the Budget to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I applaud the hon. Gentleman’s attempts at crowbarring that in there. I was talking about access to SME finance, so I will carry on.

[Ruth George]

As there is tax relief for R and D, the higher the rate of corporation tax, the greater the incentive for companies to invest in R and D, as the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) would do well to learn.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. The Government’s proposals on unlocking access to finance for business lack ambition and fail to recognise the impediments many businesses face when attempting to access finance. Indeed, Craig Berry, a member of the Industrial Strategy Commission, has said:

“the plan for unlocking private investment is under-cooked and, frankly, pitiful.”

Furthermore, the proposed sector deals appear very narrow and the strategy as a whole will do nothing to help the millions who work in retail, hospitality, care and other large low-wage, low-productivity sectors. A large proportion of those people are women, but, as we know, the Government do not have the best record when it comes to supporting women in the economy. [Interruption.] If I were a Conservative Member, I would listen to this, because these are the stark statistics: men are expected to receive 46% more of the funding from this Budget than women; and the Budget made no impact on the shocking fact that 86% of tax and benefit changes since 2010 have come at the expense of women, according to Labour and House of Commons Library research. That is scandalous.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

I am afraid that time will prevent me from following the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) too far in some of her analyses. I shall certainly resist the temptation to go into her rewriting of history, in which she glossed over a Government who carried on borrowing money during an entirely artificial boost in tax revenues, at a time of an artificial credit boom, and then found themselves hopelessly in debt at the time of the crash, leaving the 2010 Government with a colossal deficit and a huge burden of rapidly mounting debt, which they have managed strongly so far. I wish to look at where we are now and to look ahead. I should certainly resist the temptation to start re-fighting the battles on how the Labour party ruined the economy of the 2000s.

[Ruth George]

rose—

[Mr Clarke]

Having been partisan, I shall give way.

[Ruth George]

In spite of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman just said, I wonder whether he agrees with the organisation Full Fact, which says that for most of Labour’s last term in office public sector national debt was down and that it was 36% in 2008-09. Yes, it then went up to 65% in 2009-10, but that was as a result of the global economic crash and the subsequent recession, which happened globally.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. This is not a speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)]

After seven years of Conservative-led Government and seven years of austerity, my constituents in rural Derbyshire will tell this House that austerity is not working. Both our hospitals are facing closure. Three nurseries have already closed, and more are saying that they cannot continue. Schools are being squeezed by 5% cuts and saying that they cannot continue and are having to lose teachers. We have lost more than 400 police officers in Derbyshire. There are not enough to respond to serious incidents; there are not even enough to police Buxton carnival. And our firefighters have been reduced to a retained service.

Austerity is hitting us hard—it is hitting every community hard—but it is not working. After seven years of telling us that we must not borrow to invest in public services, the Conservatives are borrowing up to the hilt. The national debt clock, which they were so keen to talk about at the time of the 2010 election, now stands at £1.95 trillion. They have almost doubled the national debt, and what have we got to show for it? We have public services that are on their knees. We have public servants who cannot afford a house. We have millions of people on benefits visiting food banks. That is an absolute disgrace.

We in the Labour party believe that we should borrow, but that we should borrow to invest. We should borrow to invest in our economy, in our public services, in our workers, in our jobs and in our communities. Then we would see an economy that could grow. People would be able to spend in their local businesses, and businesses would be able to thrive. Communities would be able to prosper once again. Instead, all that this Budget has offered us is more of the same—more of the same cuts and more of the same poverty—and we ain’t seen nothing yet. The little Red Book has shown that we are just at the start of those cuts. We have another four years of freezes to benefits and school budgets, and cuts to our police, to our hospitals and to the NHS communities. That is what is happening. This Budget was a chance for the Government to come up with big new ideas, but they did not. This Government need to make way for one that can.

Hydraulic Fracturing: North East Derbyshire

Ruth George Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Lee Rowley]

I agree with the hon. Lady in terms of the importance of local communities being taken along with the country as a whole when it comes to fracking. Whatever people’s views are on fracking, there is certainly a job to be done on that.

Notwithstanding all the challenges to national policy I have described, that does not mean that we should automatically default to being in favour of fracking. In the main Chamber today we heard other examples of how we can improve and make better use of energy through new tax breaks and by trying to re-stimulate North sea oil. I welcome such activity, but I do not believe that the United Kingdom is so far having the conversation that it needs about the impact that fracking will have in some areas, such as mine.

In addition, we have not understood properly the issues that will be created for nearby residents, for businesses that need to continue to operate on a daily basis and for communities who will live in the shadow of the kind of proposals put forward for North East Derbyshire. Even if one agrees with the principle of fracking—I respect absolutely those who do, but that is another discussion we do not have time for now—that does not mean that fracking is appropriate in all circumstances or all places, or that it should be supported in all instances. That is the crucial point for me. Fracking is a highly intense, high-impact, large-scale set of activities, often but not always in rural areas, and it will change the nature of our countryside for decades. It cannot be the case even for the most ardent of its supporters that fracking is appropriate everywhere. If it should not be done in some places, I am positing that it should not be done in north Derbyshire because it is inappropriate there.

[Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)]

As the MP for a constituency that is also in Derbyshire, I accept the valid points that the hon. Gentleman is making. Is it not most regrettable that the Government have passed policy meaning that even if county councils reject an application for fracking, that will almost certainly be overturned under the Government’s guidelines and therefore the views of communities are not being taken into account?

[Lee Rowley]

I understand the point that the hon. Lady is making, but I am not sure that I necessarily agree with her conclusion. There have obviously been some places where the planning inspector has rejected the rejection of the planning authority, but in others the planning authority accepted the application in the first place or the planning inspector has not yet made an absolute decision. I do not think it is as cut and dried as the hon. Lady suggests.

I have no doubt that I will be labelled a “nimby” for what I am saying in this debate. It might be said that I do not like it just because it happens to be in my part of the world and that I would not be here right now if it were not for the fact that the field that it is being proposed to dig up is in the middle of my constituency. Many of my constituents would have absolutely no time for those sentiments. North East Derbyshire is not full of nimbys. We have spent most of the past four centuries digging up coal, oil and gas in order to support people, to heat their homes, to allow them to drive their cars and to enable them to ensure that their factories still work, and we have lost men, sacrificed health and scarred our landscape as a result. On a personal level, both my grandfathers worked down the pits; one died as a result of the health injuries that he incurred down there, and the other lost his leg. Many of my constituents worked in the production of energy for many years. The last coal mine in my area closed within living memory. I have sat in living rooms that have lamps from 40 years ago, collected when the mines were still open, surrounded by the memorabilia of those coal mining areas, which are now saying that they do not want fracking in their part of the world.

We are not nimbys. We have looked at the proposal in our area and we have concluded that Bramleymoor is a thoroughly inappropriate place to undertake this activity. We have rationalised, for good and honest reasons, why we do not want the kind of industrialisation that this would bring. Some in my area have gone further and turned against fracking as a whole; a number would ban it. Whatever the disparate reasons—I do not concur with all of them—we are stronger together as a group and we stand as one and say in unison: we do not want the Bramleymoor Lane application; we do not need it; and we should not have it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

I am afraid that I do not know about that particular application, but we have been discussing the local planning procedure and I am sure that the officers and councillors of that area would take that into consideration—[Interruption.] Well, in my experience of a lot of planning applications in my constituency, they do in some and in some they do not. I cannot say that we have had anything like fracking, but in the normal system, that is what the democratic process involves.

The cumulative effect of shale developments need to be taken into account. The national policy is clear: when planning permission is granted for shale gas, the cumulative impact of potentially multiple shale sites has to be considered. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire made that point towards the end of his speech. Such sites are not just considered in isolation. That is part of the national planning policy. Local authorities have the power to assess and restrict the cumulative effects of shale sites, which include some points that he made about the adverse impact on the natural or historical environment. The Government’s view is that the protections are sufficient.

As with any construction project—my hon. Friend might not want any in his constituency; that is a perfectly reasonable view—there will be some element of disruption. The planning guidance clearly sets out how surface-level considerations—such as noise, dust, air quality, lighting and the visual impact on the local and wider landscape, as well as traffic, which the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) mentioned—should all be addressed by the local planning authority. That has to be considered. Such authorities, including his own, can refuse the application or impose operational restrictions for that reason or any other that they consider appropriate.

In my understanding, from the research that we did when we found out about this debate, the application at Marsh Lane is not for hydraulic fracturing, but for stratigraphy tests—I hope hon. Members will excuse my lack of a scientific background, but the application is not for hydraulic fracturing.

[Ruth George]

My constituency also falls under the same local authority. Given that the Minister will ask the local authority to look into all the very valid points raised by the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), if the application is thereby refused by the local authority and is called up before the Secretary of State, will the Secretary of State then give due weighting to exactly the same arguments from the community in contravention of the guidance that has been given?

[Richard Harrington]

I am not actually making a point about this case; I am saying that there is a duty to look into all these points.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth George]

Should the Secretary of State not do so as well?

[Richard Harrington]

The Secretary of State at the Department for Communities and Local Government—not at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, because this is not dealt with commercially, but as a planning application—does, I am sure, know their duties perfectly well, which in this case are quasi-judicial in nature and, I am sure, include those particular things—[Interruption.] Well, they do.

As for the benefits of shale, all our constituents have to consider what the benefits and disadvantages might be, as with anything else. The benefits might include a community benefit fund, for example. In Lancashire, there was an application in which Cuadrilla—another company that does this sort of thing—announced that £100,000 would be given to an independent community benefit fund. Local residents are consulted on this matter. The Treasury recently set out proposals on how the new shale wealth fund will be delivered. I will not go into detail on that, because I know there is very little time left.

Local people are part of the whole system, which could deliver very large sums of money to constituents in these areas. They may decide it is not for them, but they also have the right to decide democratically that it might be. I would not rule that out. That money is in addition to any existing local government funding. It is not there to replace existing projects, but it would improve local jobs and tax revenues, and so on. There are plus points.

The Government will only allow the development of a shale gas industry in a safe way, both for the environment and local people. There are plenty of legal safeguards, through the Infrastructure Act 2015 and other measures. Some environmental issues were mentioned in relation to mining in previous generations, including flooding, all of which the ancestors of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire would have suffered from, so those are already in the system. We have banned fracking from many valuable areas such as national parks, the broads and areas of outstanding natural beauty.

I wish I had more time, but I will conclude by saying that, if successful, the shale gas industry could have good points for the country, but as with anything else there is a balance between supporting the industry and protecting the countryside. There is flexibility in the local planning system to ensure that the views of local communities are considered and that local planning authorities take into account the particular characteristics of a proposed site—that is why it is a “local” system. The Government are keen to see shale gas go ahead in the UK, because we want the opportunity for the country to benefit from it, but I fully accept all the points made by my hon. Friend. I congratulate him on making those points—everything he said has been carefully noted.

Question put and agreed to.

Tesco House, Cardiff: Job Losses

Ruth George Excerpts

Wednesday 19th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Anna McMorrin]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support.

In his desire to achieve more savings, Mr Lewis needs to understand that he has an absolute responsibility to treat his employees fairly and with respect. He owes them a duty of care and he should listen to what his staff are saying.

In the days following the announcement, I went to the customer centre to meet the staff affected, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) and my local Assembly Member, Julie Morgan. The staff are utterly devastated and feel let down by a company to which some have dedicated their working lives. One staff member told me:

“We had felt like we were part of one big family and took pride in coming to work. This feels like being dumped like an old pair of shoes after being promised a secure future. Now we are feeling exploited and used.”

Some of the worst-affected households are those with multiple members losing their jobs. Some families will lose two, three or even four wages from their budgets. One couple in their late 20s who had their first child less than a year ago are both set to lose their jobs.

[Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)]

Following the coalition Government’s halving of the statutory consultation period from 90 days to just 45 days, the employees whose whole lives will be devastated by these redundancies have just 45 days to find another job in a small area where there will be more than 1,000 redundancies. Does my hon. Friend agree that 45 days is far too short a period for employees to find alternative jobs and for companies to look at straightforward alternative business proposals to fulfil their duty to consult properly with staff and look at real alternatives to keep those jobs in place?

[Anna McMorrin]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend about that, which is precisely why I brought this debate to the House.

One worker told me:

“We are absolutely devastated as my fiancée is currently on maternity leave with the birth of our baby daughter. We have also planned to get married next year so this news has come at the worst possible time for us in our lives and we are very worried for the future.”

Another staff member contacted me on Facebook. He said:

“It’s been stressful for a lot of us, some more than others. I’ve been made aware that there are options to apply for a store role or to move to the Tesco site up Dundee. This is not an option as it’d be too much of a drastic life change and there are very few roles considering the number of employees in our centre. The announcement has also left me wondering, if I moved to another role in the business, would I be any less vulnerable to another redundancy announcement in future.”

He went on:

“A lot of my colleagues whose time at Tesco exceed 10 years are choosing to stay until the end for their redundancy package as they’ll get a significantly larger amount but for many employees like myself who have been with Tesco just a little over a year, we see no incentive in staying as I don’t feel valued as an employee anymore and barely feel like I’m part of the place now.

The morale has dropped rapidly on my work floor whereas it felt like a small community only a year back, and now it feels very empty and makes me feel quite down whenever I’m in the environment. I used to love coming to work but now the hours feel longer and it just feels like it’s getting in the way of the hours I could be using to find progression in life.”

Those are just a few of the many messages I have had from distraught members of staff who have been affected.

What is going to happen now? The Welsh Government’s Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure, Ken Skates, has announced the formation of a taskforce to find new employment opportunities for the staff. That is a welcome development. It will pool the knowledge and resources of key partners to ensure that the 1,100 people currently working at the centre are provided with the very best support in seeking further employment, as well as welfare and emotional support. Following my question to the Leader of the House on 22 June, I ask the Minister before us to urge the Department for Work and Pensions to work with the Welsh Government and dispatch its emergency taskforce to help ensure that the staff who are affected are fully supported.

While that work goes on, along with the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, I will be making the case for Tesco to rethink its plans and for better engagement with its workforce. If there is to be any outsourcing of jobs, at the very least I would like an assurance from Tesco and the management that they will go to companies based in south Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I welcome the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) to her place and congratulate her on initiating this important debate.

These are worrying times for Tesco staff at the Cardiff customer engagement centre and their families—especially those families with more than one person employed there—and I am sure that all our thoughts are with them. As the hon. Lady said, at 1 o’clock on 21 June, before it was officially announced at 2 o’clock, Tesco notified its staff of its intended plans to simplify its customer services operation by expanding its office in Dundee and—sadly—closing the centre in Cardiff by February 2018. I know that the hon. Lady tweeted, shortly after Tesco told its staff, about how shocked she was to learn of the proposed closure, and raised the issue with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House during business questions.

A 45-day consultation with the unions has begun. The Government’s focus is to support all those affected and to get people back into work as quickly as possible through Jobcentre Plus. I can assure the hon. Lady that we are working with the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that the maximum service is available.

[Ruth George]

I wish to make the same point to the Minister that I made to my hon. Friend. The period of statutory consultation, even for such enormous job losses, has been halved from 90 days to 45 days. Whatever support the DWP and Jobcentre Plus can put in is very welcome, but 45 days is far too short a period for so many jobs to be found in a city such as Cardiff. Although Cardiff has good employment levels, 1,200 good jobs cannot be replaced in such a short time. Will the Minister look at reviewing that halving to assist companies in supporting their employees?

[Margot James]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and I did note her earlier remarks. I do not think there is any prospect of reversing that decision. I accept that it can prove difficult for people to find alternative employment within the 45 days, but a lot of support is going on in Cardiff, not just from the DWP and the Government but from the Welsh Assembly. It is a buoyant economy and I hope that people will find satisfactory employment within that timeframe.

It is not always easy to find another job, and even if people do so it does not alter the hurt they feel at the rejection that redundancy always involves. But business change is an inevitable consequence of competitive markets, and retail is a highly competitive market at the moment. Commercial and economic opportunities and threats mean that companies will need to reorganise, merge, expand and, sometimes, unfortunately contract in response. To ensure businesses remain viable and profitable, they need the flexibility to respond to the circumstances they are facing as best they can. At the same time, employees will want to know how the changes are likely to affect them, and what their options are for the future. It is vital, therefore, that there is effective consultation with employees about the potential for collective redundancies.

Taylor Review: Working Practices

Ruth George Excerpts

Tuesday 11th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Margot James]

My hon. Friend asks me a difficult question. I do believe—Matthew Taylor’s report bears this out—that flexibility benefits employers and employees, but I am afraid that the evidence given to the inquiry suggested that in too many cases that flexibility is a one-way street, as I said earlier. We must deal with the problem of people who are really at risk and whose employment position is far too insecure.

[Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s commitment to the Government’s upholding of workers’ rights, but as part of the Government’s response to the report, will she consider enabling workers to uphold their own rights? Will she look again at the fees for employment tribunals, which have led to a 70% reduction in cases brought by single claimants, such as those working in the gig economy, against their employers?

[Margot James]

The hon. Lady makes an important point, but it is really a matter for the Ministry of Justice. Matthew Taylor has not actually recommended that we get rid of fees for employment tribunals, and I think we should recognise the positive aspect: the upsurge in the number of employment disputes that have been settled through mediation. However, I will continue to look at the issue that the hon. Lady raises.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth George Excerpts

Tuesday 27th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

Again, that was a disappointing response. The hon. Lady knows, and the leaders of her local councils know, how important initiatives such as the city deal and the growth deal have been in the north-east. If she looks around the country, she will see that, whereas in past years most jobs were created in London and the south-east, that situation has been transformed, and the north-east of England is one of the areas that have created jobs at a more rapid rate than anywhere else in the country. She should commend that development.

[Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)]

13. What the reasons are for the time taken to publish the Government’s carbon reduction plan.

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

I welcome the hon. Lady to her new job. I also have a new job, and, since taking on the role I have been incredibly impressed by the progress that the United Kingdom has made, both in meeting its own climate emissions targets and in exercising international leadership in that regard. I want the carbon growth plan to be as ambitious, robust and clear a blueprint as it can be, so that we can continue to deliver on this hugely vital piece of domestic and international policy. I am therefore taking the time to ensure that the draft could be extended to become more ambitious, and I intend to publish the plan when Parliament sits again after the summer recess.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

19. What the reasons are for the time taken to publish the Government’s carbon reduction plan.

[Ruth George]

I thank the Minister for her words. Will she join me in commending the work of the Moors for the Future partnership in my constituency in the Peak District for the purpose of carbon reduction? It is revegetating the large areas of bare peat that exist there, thus fixing carbon emissions. Will the Minister also please let us know what effect the new timeframe of the carbon reduction plan, which was due in 2016, will have on industries and other partnerships that are relying on seeing the plan?

[Claire Perry]

I am, of course, delighted to welcome that incredibly innovative partnership, which was launched in 2002 and is making real progress in working out how we can naturally store carbon in the peat environment that the hon. Lady now represents. As I have said, I intend to publish the clean growth plan when Parliament returns from the summer recess. I look forward to cross-party discussion and, hopefully, consensus on a document that is hugely important both for Britain’s domestic future and for our international leadership.