Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Tahir Ali Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 30th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Claudia Webbe]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point, to which I hope the Government are listening. The Bill is manifestly unjust and must not become law. That is why amendments 93 and 92 are needed. The Government are not just showing their contempt for the UK’s legal and democratic principles with this Bill. As it stands, the Secretary of State can ignore the UK’s international legal and treaty obligations on the treatment of workers and allow the sacking of workers simply for exercising their internationally recognised right to withdraw their labour, with nothing to protect certain workers and union officials from being targeted by bad bosses. Time and again, this Government bring forward legislation without an impact assessment. Where is the impact assessment? Where is the equality impact assessment? That is why new clause 1 and amendments 4, 83 and 84 are needed.

The harm this Bill does to the rights of our people is obvious, but it also does huge harm to the UK’s international standing, making this country yet again an outlier among so-called developed nations in its readiness to disregard international law and agreements. The Bill is clearly unfit and is designed to break the will of the unions and demoralise workers. These amendments and new clauses will not actually make the Bill fit, but the proposed changes will at least mitigate some of the dangers it evidently poses. I urge the Committee to support them.

As workers rise in opposition to this Bill, to defend their rights and to say enough is enough, and as industrial action increases as a direct result of this Bill, I urge all hon. and right hon. Members to do the decent thing and to stand with them not only here in Parliament, but on the picket line. On 1 February, I will be standing with workers in Leicester who are rightly exercising their democratic right to strike for fair pay, terms and conditions. I ask Members to support the amendments and to scrap this Bill for good.

[Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)]

I refer the Committee to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I am a proud member of the Communication Workers Union and Unite the union.

I am appalled by the introduction of the Bill, but I cannot say that I am surprised by it. Historically, the Conservatives have taken every opportunity afforded to them in government to attack and curtail the rights of trade unions to represent hard-working people at their places of employment. Whether in the Industrial Relations Act 1971 under Heath or the raft of draconian anti-trade union laws introduced under Thatcher, the Conservatives have demonstrated again and again that they are fundamentally opposed to any notion of workers having a voice or a right to negotiate pay and conditions at their workplace. To attack the fundamental rights of workers to withdraw their labour is an act not of strength or leadership from the Government, but of downright cowardice.

Key workers across the UK, who are struggling to make ends meet after years of hard work and sacrifice, are now exercising their democratic right to demand better pay and conditions after 13 years of miserable Conservative Governments. Any sensible, sincere and serious Government would be doing everything in their power to ensure that agreement could be reached, so that workers could receive what they are owed and the public did not have to endure disruption any longer than necessary. It is the Government who are failing to provide the most minimum of service levels, not our public sector workers.

As a lifelong trade unionist, I know first hand the vital work done by trade unions throughout our society. I stood in solidarity with all the university workers who went out to protect their pensions. I stood in solidarity with BT workers, rail workers, Royal Mail workers and all the strike workers who have stood up for their rights to better pay and conditions under 13 years of miserable Tory Governments.

Again, on 1 February, I will stand by the public sector workers from Jobcentre Plus who are defending not only their jobs but their right to feed their children and to have living standards that have been eroded by Conservative Governments. Given the mortgage payment increases that resulted from the scenario made in Downing Street by the previous Chancellor and the previous Prime Minister, it is their right to go on strike to defend their right to have better pay that meets the increase in the cost of living. That cost of living crisis—made in Downing Street after 13 years of Conservative rule—means that every worker deserves to go out on strike.

The Minister muttered earlier that the Government were passing the Bill to save lives, but if they want to save lives, they should fill the 47,000 nursing vacancies, as the nurses are crying out for them to do; they should fill the vacancies for the doctors who are needed in the NHS; they should fill the vacancies in the police, where cuts have cost lives, and are costing lives, because policing cannot happen in the way that it should; and they should back the firefighters, who are delivering an excellent service despite the cuts that Conservative Governments have forced on them. If I want a better life for myself, it is equally the right of every single working-class person in the country to stand up for their rights and to make sure that their children do not go hungry. Children should be fed in school and at home—free meals should be provided for everyone at primary school level.

Equally, we must realise that the cost of living crisis created by the Government is forcing people to go out on strike. The poll carried out by YouGov—a name we have heard a few times this week—for Sky News today shows that despite the increase in the number of strikes, there is huge public support for workers, because they are ordinary working people who are suffering. Children and working people are suffering, and the cost of living crisis is crippling families’ take home pay. That is their fundamental right. This Government are failing to provide the minimum service levels that our public sector needs and deserves.

The work of trade unions is much more fundamental than that. It is about ensuring that people have a voice and can act and hold their employers to account, whether that be on working conditions, health and safety matters or pay and conditions. It is about fairness, justice and democracy at work. The Bill represents an outright attack on these values, and it should be rejected by every person in this Chamber and everyone who will be voting later today. Who would believe that workers would be treated with the utmost disrespect after this 13 years of Tory rule?

It is evident that at every step of the way this Government have tried to denigrate the unions and the rights of the unions. There were remarks made from the Government Benches about trade unions bankrolling Labour Members, but let me remind the Minister: it is up to every union member whether they opt in or out of the political fund, and it is incumbent on unions to ballot their members on it. I say with great satisfaction that the vast majority have opted in so that political work and campaigning can happen.

I am proud to stand here as a trade unionist. If we are to do justice by people, we need an increase in nurses and doctors, and we need funding for schools so that teachers can properly provide the services they went into their careers to provide. There is an alternative to these minimum service levels. It is called a general election. If the Government really believe what they are doing is in the interests of the people of this country, they should call a general election and find out.

[Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)]

I speak as a proud trade unionist, a member of Unite the union and Unison, and as someone who appreciates and is grateful to all our public servants. I echo the case put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) and support the amendments put forward by Opposition Members. My view is simple: this draconian Bill is as anti-democratic as it is unethical. It is as unworkable as it is counterproductive. It is an admission by a Conservative Government who are out of ideas and fundamentally out of touch with the working people who are the backbone of our public services. We are witnessing the greatest strike disruption that this country has seen since 1990. It is not a mystery why: workers have faced the biggest squeeze in their wages since the Napoleonic era.

In the private sector, many employers have engaged in constructive negotiations to agree pay deals, but in the public sector the Government have refused to get around the table. They have decided to legislate rather than negotiate. It would cost £18 billion to provide proper, inflation-matching pay awards for public service staff. The Public Accounts Committee estimates that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is owed an eye-watering £42 billion in unpaid taxes. Rather than bringing forward a Bill to restrict workers’ ability to fight for fair pay, perhaps Ministers could look into recovering that revenue to cover the cost of these fair wages. I understand that a former Cabinet member has some experience in this area and now has some time on his hands as well.

When the public look to our NHS or our schools or any of our public services, they see 13 years of Tory mismanagement. The staff working in those services are simply echoing the same concerns, because they too are members of the public. They are reliant on those services and they are feeling the cost of living crisis.

Today, after much consideration, firefighters have overwhelmingly, and democratically, voted to strike. This is a last resort for those members, but they have witnessed their pay being eaten away, some of them are having to use food banks, and their life-saving services have been cut by 30%. Fundamentally, this case underlines why this legislation is not about public safety. This Government’s cuts have been putting the public at risk every single day. Moreover, the FBU has already negotiated a major incident agreement with fire employers, proving once again that this Bill is a desperate attempt to restrict its ability to push for a fair wage.

Future of Postal Services

Tahir Ali Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Before I call Tahir Ali to move the motion, there is obviously a cast of thousands here. It is a one-hour debate, and the Opposition Front-Bench spokespeople will speak for five minutes and the Minister for 10 minutes. When Tahir has sat down, I will let you know what your life expectancy will be, but it will be about two minutes, so you should prepare for that. I might give you one minute more, Jeremy, but for most of you it will be two minutes.

[Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of postal services.

It is indeed a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary, and I refer you to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a proud member of the Communication Workers Union and an employee of Royal Mail.

The question of the future of postal services has been thrown into stark relief in recent times. The pandemic meant that many were confined to their homes, reliant on deliveries to meet their basic needs. It became clear to everyone that postal workers were key to the economy and to the regular functioning of our society. For many during lockdown, the relief provided by our postal services was vital in maintaining wellbeing and keeping families and communities safe.

During the pandemic, the volume of parcels delivered grew by a staggering 50%, with a total of 4.2 billion parcels delivered in the year 2020-21. Royal Mail saw its parcel volumes increase by 30%, with a total of 1.7 billion parcels delivered, which means 40% of the total number of parcels delivered in the UK were delivered by Royal Mail.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. While Royal Mail may have some challenges, it is important to recognise what it does well, which includes parcel delivery. With Evri, formerly known as Hermes, parcels are stolen, lost or delayed at huge cost to customers and businesses alike. Does the hon. Member agree that companies such as Evri should be held to account for their failings?

[Tahir Ali]

I agree with the hon. Member’s comments and I hope to cover that specific issue later in my speech. The longer interventions are, the less time other Members will get.

All Royal Mail deliveries were achieved in a way that satisfied most service users. Some 83% of residential customers said they were satisfied with Royal Mail’s service, while 79% of small and medium-sized enterprises said they were satisfied. That was all the result of hard work and sacrifice by Royal Mail staff, who increased the revenues of Royal Mail by a huge 40%, generating healthy profits of £758 million for the company in 2021.

However, £576 million of those profits were promptly paid out to shareholders, with the chief executive officer of Royal Mail, Simon Thompson, paying himself a massive bonus of £140,000. Let us pause for a minute and think about what that £570 million could have done if it had come into the Treasury. It could have contributed hugely towards money to pay nurses, doctors and ambulance drivers.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this timely debate. He mentioned the chief executive officer of Royal Mail, Simon Thompson. Does my hon. Friend agree that if Royal Mail is to be sorted out for the future, which the CWU was trying to do, Simon Thompson has no place as chief executive officer?

[Tahir Ali]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Where a chief executive does not have the interest of the workforce at heart, they need to consider their position.

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, based on his 30 years’ experience working as a postie. As he said, if half the money given to shareholders was given to the actual workers, there would be no need for this dispute or strike. Does he agree that CWU members deserve a pay rise and that the company can afford it?

[Tahir Ali]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention; that is a very pertinent point. I stressed that £576 million, which she also referred to. This is not about affordability; this is about picking a fight with the workforce, who have put themselves at risk to make sure that we were safe and secure, and received our deliveries throughout the pandemic.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

As noted, my hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Does he agree, following on from the previous points, that there can be no long-term sustainable future for our postal services while Royal Mail is paying millions to shareholders from its announced profit of £758 million, while at the same time cutting pay and condition for postal workers?

[Tahir Ali]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Services in his region are delivered through Leeds mail centre, among others, which is one of the biggest in the region that he serves, yet many employees are now resorting to food banks to feed their families. In this day and age, it is absolutely shocking that a Royal Mail employee should be resorting to food banks.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Tahir Ali]

I will make a bit of progress before I give way, otherwise interventions are going to take over.

Staff were given a derisory pay offer, and faced an assault on working conditions and threats to cut up to 10,000 permanent jobs and replace them with self-employed drivers and agency workers. It has been left to the Communication Workers Union to challenge this attempt to restructure Royal Mail as a gig economy-style company and protect the interests of permanent members of staff. The recent industrial action, led by the CWU, reflects the anger and exasperation of employees, who have had enough of being overlooked and underrated. After several days of walkouts, 91.24% of workers voted in favour of continuing the strike action into the new year. If management continue to refuse to negotiate in good faith and reach a deal with workers, disruption could continue.

However, I know that staff at Royal Mail do not want to be in this situation. They do not want to be on strike, but they feel as though their hand has been forced. I know this because I spent my working life at Royal Mail—my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) almost gave my age away there; I did not think I was even 30 years old—and I know the values and principles that motivate all who work there. I have experienced at first hand the dedication and professionalism of Royal Mail staff, and I know that they put the needs of service users and communities at the very centre of their efforts.

[Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)]

When Royal Mail made a record £758 million profit last year, surely it can invest in its staff to continue to deliver on the universal service obligation that it promised its customers?

[Tahir Ali]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point, which has been echoed in previous interventions. We will be calling on the Minister to go back to the Royal Mail board and stress the need to resolve this issue, because it is not one of affordability.

Royal Mail has, through thick and thin, managed to provide a truly excellent and universal service. Despite the shambolic privatisation of Royal Mail, the ethos of those working within it is still one of public service. Royal Mail was founded on the principle of universal service, and its staff still stand by that principle today. However, the current leadership of Royal Mail seems to be moving the company further and further away from its public service ethos, and seeking to emulate multinationals such as Amazon, DPD and DHL, where bogus self-employment is rife and pay and working conditions are abysmal.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; he is making a fantastic speech. Does he agree that if Royal Mail cannot operate without driving down workers’ pay and cutting jobs because its first priority is clearly always its shareholders, it has failed in its stated aim to provide the public service that it is meant to? Does he agree that that is an argument for taking Royal Mail back into public ownership? In my view and the view of the overwhelming majority of the public, that is where it belongs.

[Tahir Ali]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I could not agree more.

I have highlighted a glimpse of the bleak future that the management at Royal Mail want: poorer pay, poorer conditions, overworked staff, a zero-hour workforce and a service that is neither universal nor satisfactory to the customer. That has been seen in the steady erosion of the universal service obligation, along with the recent announcement that Royal Mail will be split into two entities and potentially sold off to the asset-stripping company Vesa Equity Investment, which is currently its largest shareholder.

It is evident from this that Royal Mail profiteering is becoming the name of the game. The billions in revenue generated by Royal Mail staff are eaten up by shareholders and management, who pay themselves huge bonuses while staff struggle to make ends meet. Instead of being reinvested to truly modernise and improve Royal Mail, this revenue is being used to pay off shareholders.

It is clear to me, therefore, that there are two possible futures for Royal Mail: one as a universal public service provided with compassion and dedication by employees who are valued and respected; and the other just as a delivery company, to be pumped for profit and asset-stripped, at the expense of service users and with workers’ pay and conditions eroded. What does all of this signal for the future of postal services in the UK?

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; he is making an excellent speech. Is it not, even in commercial terms, an incredibly short-term prospect? Fundamentally, the current management of Royal Mail are trashing the business and will therefore end up, even on their own terms, with a much-weakened company, which unfortunately may then have to be nationalised because it is failing. The service that it is providing is so bad that people are moving away from it. That really is a national crisis that requires Government intervention.

[Tahir Ali]

I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend, who is a neighbouring MP from my region. This will turn Royal Mail into a badly performing company. CEOs and management move on, but it is the employees who stay and have to pick up the pieces.

I believe that the present circumstances offer us two possible paths forward: one ensuring that Royal Mail continues to offer an exemplary public service to all in the UK, with the profits of expanding operations going into decent pay and conditions for staff, as well as improvements to the service overall; and another in which Royal Mail is stripped of its public service ethos and reorganised to generate maximum profits for shareholders, while the service loses out to private competition. I believe that the choice is an obvious one. Royal Mail should be considered a public service, and therefore it should be owned and governed as one. I believe that Royal Mail should be renationalised.

[Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for securing this debate. As we all know, he has a huge interest in the service and has worked for a long period in it, supported by the people who work continuously. I visited a number of post offices and distribution offices during Christmas, when all the cards and everything else are sent.

This current management structure is purely about asset-stripping and making money out of the service in the short term, and getting rid of the whole service. I think it is incumbent on this Government and the Minister who is here today to have a far more serious debate—I am sure that my hon. Friend would lead it—about ensuring that Royal Mail remains a proper public service for all those people, from grandparents to grandchildren, who enjoy all the cards and other mail that they receive every day.

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind hon. Members that interventions should be brief. If we have many more, there will not be any time for speeches.

[Tahir Ali]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is always keen to visit the local mail centre. Under the boundary changes, that mail centre will fall in his constituency, so we can visit it jointly.

I believe that Royal Mail should be renationalised, and I am not alone. A recent poll showed that 68% of the public back the renationalisation of Royal Mail, and studies have highlighted that renationalisation might save £171 million a year. However, we cannot talk about postal services and the renationalisation of Royal Mail without discussing the post office network. The network is inarguably one of the most important for small businesses and local communities, which rely on their local post offices to collect and receive parcels and letters, as well as to export items all over the world.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

As my hon. Friend is aware, there are only 116 Crown post offices left. When it comes to closing banks, part of the Government’s strategy is that people can access banking services and cash from their post offices. Does he agree that it is highly unlikely that people can access banking services from a post office when that post office no longer exists?

[Tahir Ali]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. If a post office operates as a franchise, it can close shop and go at any time. When someone is providing a public service, they have a duty of care towards the community. In rural areas, post offices are usually the only contact that people—especially elderly people—have with someone who is providing them with a service.

The value of postal services must not be overlooked. Citizens Advice reports that one in five residents visit the post office at least once a week, and in rural areas that figure is one in four people. That shows the continued importance of post offices to constituents.

[Mrs Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing such an important debate. Post office staff work really hard, including in Erdington, Kingstanding and Castle Vale. We have seven post offices, but I understand that, despite one in five people visiting post offices every week, there are serious concerns about franchises being lost across the country. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should fulfil their duty and ensure that post offices are protected?

[Tahir Ali]

My hon. Friend makes an important point: we should not just look at the Post Office board; the Government have a role to play. I am sure that the Minister will respond to that.

Online shopping is growing exponentially in the UK, with the parcel market growing to over 50% of all post since 2010. Over 130 million parcels have been sent in the UK by small businesses. That has placed pressure on the postal sector to hire more employees and open more post office branches, with 11,365 branches open by March 2022. The postal service has worked hard to keep up with the surge of technology by signing contracts with Amazon, DHL and DPD, among others, to introduce click and collect services, and reaching agreements to deliver parcels to post office branches to meet higher customer expectations.

Despite all the changes, however, there are big cracks in the post office network that gesture towards a bleak future. Government funding for post offices through the network subsidy and investment grants declined from £410 million in 2012-13 to just £120 million in 2020-21—a reduction of 71%. Post office branches have been opened, but out of the 11,000-plus post offices, only 4,000 are open seven days a week and many provide only partial outreach services. By September 2021, over 1,200 branches had closed, which is double the number five years ago.

The accessibility of branches has become a massive issue in recent years; some constituents, especially in rural areas, only have a few post offices near them, and those either work on a part-time basis or are temporarily closed. Not all residents are tech savvy—I am not, either—meaning that post offices are a necessity for some, especially for banking. Over 110 million banking transactions were carried out in post offices in 2017. The number of branch closures has been rising steadily, and it is becoming harder for communities and businesses to access post offices.

The Government have played their part in creating an uncertain future for postal services by severely downplaying their role in helping the community and the economy, and significantly reducing investment in the network. Nick Read, the chief executive of Post Office, expresses the same concerns. He stated that the Government “should not overlook” the role of post offices and postmasters in keeping national and local communities connected, and urged the Government to extend their support for post office branches with energy bills beyond March 2023 to keep the postal service alive.

The CWU has described the continued selling off of post offices as “backdoor privatisation”, an assessment I agree with. It is evident that the increase in parcel delivery and collection, along with e-commerce, gives the Post Office a new opportunity for future growth. That is why we must continue to foster and grow our post office network through investment and not through sell-offs to the highest bidder.

To conclude, I have some pertinent questions for the Minister. First, at a time when the Government claim to be levelling up the nation, what are they doing to increase the presence of post offices in rural areas where elderly populations are reliant on these services? Furthermore, as more post offices are partial outreach services open for an average of five and a half hours a week, what impact assessment will the Government undertake to ensure that every member of the public has sufficient access to these vital services? Will the Government commit to restoring the post office network grant to previous levels as a means of providing real investment and modernisation to the network?

Do the Government agree that Royal Mail should see being the universal service obligation provider as a competitive advantage, rather than as something to be whittled away over time? Do they accept that those hard-working postal workers who put their lives on the line during covid-19 should be considered essential workers key to the national infrastructure? Will the Government confirm that they stand against the restructuring of Royal Mail into a casualised, gig economy-style service, which will prove detrimental to both staff and service users?

Will the Minister explain the reasoning behind allowing Vesa Equity to acquire a controlling stake in Royal Mail, particularly given the threat it poses to the future of both Royal Mail and universal UK postal services? Finally, does he agree that a postie is there for life, not just for Christmas?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tahir Ali]

I want to respond forcefully on the issue of union-busting tactics. Within days of members taking industrial action, Royal Mail announced that it was taking 10,000 jobs away from workers to scare them into not going on strike. It says that it has more than £1 billion to break up the union. It is suspending union representatives without proper reason, just as a ploy to scaremonger and to bully the staff. An attack on one employee is an attack on all employees, and neither the CWU nor any employee will stand for that in any way, shape or form.

In this country, we can send a letter for 58p to Orkney or Shetland, or to the Isle of Wight. That is the only duty that the company has. None of the private companies is legally obliged to deliver to every single address in this country. We want a level playing field, but the profit and the cream are taken away by the other companies. Royal Mail is modernising—it has been—but the workers deserve more.

Ban on Fracking for Shale Gas Bill

Tahir Ali Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown]

It is great to hear Tory Back Benchers tying themselves in knots to argue about why they are voting for the principle of fracking.

Let me get back to local consent. The Government amendment refers to consulting

“regional mayors, local authorities and parishes”.

That is quite a vague concept and could open things up to cronyism and political machinations. However, I welcome the sentiment of the Secretary of State, who is now talking about local referendums. It is good to know that the Tory Government now believe in the principle of referendums for people to exercise their democratic right; I look forward to Scotland being able to implement that next year. I welcome that damascene conversion.

The Tory Government’s new-found enthusiasm for shale gas is not based on credible evidence. They have put forward arguments that it will increase energy security, that it is required because of the illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine and that we need to move away from our reliance on Russian oil and gas imports, but really they have arrived at a solution to a problem that does not exist. It is quite clear that the UK had minimal reliance on Russian imports and has already managed to eliminate the small percentage of oil and gas imports from Russia.

If the argument is that shale gas will reduce prices, that is quite clearly not true either. The right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng)—the then BEIS Secretary, now the former Chancellor—admitted that any shale gas would be an internationally traded commodity on the international market and that traders would determine prices. The only way that that will not happen is if there is another damascene conversion and if the Government are planning some sort of nationalised energy company that will frack the shale gas, control it and put it on the domestic market at low prices. Otherwise, it will be all about the international market.

The harsh truth is that there is not even enough firm evidence of the reserves available in the basins that can be used for extraction. Without that knowledge, any talk of increasing energy security and reducing imports is pure fantasy at this stage. Any talk of jobs or of boosting local economies also remains completely speculative—there is no evidence for it.

[Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)]

Our country is fortunate enough to have massive potential for the development and harnessing of renewable energy. Does the hon. Member agree that in resorting to fracking, the Government are essentially admitting that they have no interest in developing the skills, infrastructure, jobs or industries necessary for a green industrial revolution in this country?

[Alan Brown]

I agree. We have only to look at the renewable energy revolution that has happened in Scotland. Of course, for Scotland to fully embrace that potential, we clearly need the powers that come with independence and we need to get away from the decision makers on the Conservative Benches.

Energy Update

Tahir Ali Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He is truly a champion of businesses in his constituency and across the country; I know the important work he does on the Select Committee on Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, for example. He is right, in that most of the energy of businesses in this country is dealt with through long-term contracts. That is an advantage in giving certainty, but when it is time for the long-term contract to be extended or renewed that can lead to a very concerning rise in the price of that contract. The Government are keenly aware of that and it is absolutely something that our new Prime Minister and the team overall will be looking at.

[Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)]

The Minister’s statement was nothing but full of hot air. In the midst of a cost of living crisis, the worst in living memory, many of my constituents are struggling to pay their energy bills, as are others across the country. The words of wisdom from the outgoing Prime Minister were for people to buy a kettle for £20 and save £10 a year. Does the Minister agree that the Government are out of touch with struggling families and that the suggestion of a new kettle is not only insulting, but derisory?

[Greg Hands]

Look, that is not what the Prime Minister said; he did not say that the answer to the energy crisis was to buy a new kettle. He used the new kettle to provide an analogy as to how we have dealt with nuclear power in this country, further to the points I raised earlier, with the failure to have a long-term view as to how to save money on energy costs overall. The hon. Gentleman is wholly misrepresenting what the Prime Minister said—I suspect he is wilfully misrepresenting it—in his speech on Friday.

Oil and Gas Producers: Windfall Tax

Tahir Ali Excerpts

Tuesday 1st February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)]

Over the past few months, I have been approached by numerous constituents in Birmingham, Hall Green who have expressed serious concern over the affordability of their fuel bills. Many people are now facing a significant cost of living crisis that has been driven, in my view, by two main factors. First, over the last 20 years in the UK, gas prices have nearly tripled; the increase is staggering: 221%. Given the reliance on gas in many households across the country, this significant increase, which is set to further accelerate this year, has driven the cost of living up for millions of families and businesses and forced families to choose between heating and eating.

The second factor is the anaemic growth in wages over the same period. Wage growth has been slow and has struggled to recover to pre-2008 levels. Taken together, what does this mean? It means a significant squeeze in the standard of living for millions of families, who are seeing more and more of their hard-earned wages being absorbed by the gas and oil companies, which have registered record profits over the course of the pandemic. If that is not bad enough, some of the largest North sea oil and gas companies, such as Shell and BP, have paid zero corporation tax in recent years. Not only is that deeply unfair for hard-working families; it also means growing inequalities in the distribution of our national resources.

That situation is unsustainable. Without massive investment in alternative sources of energy, the spiralling cost of gas and oil will only continue to worsen in future years, yet this Government seem to have no plan to address the issue. They are content to see a low-wage, high-cost economy where the wealthy continue to profit while hard-working families struggle to make ends meet. That is why we on this side of the House are proposing a windfall tax on gas and oil companies. It is high time that we began to redistribute the massive wealth built on the back of consumers who have no choice but to pay the ever higher prices for energy bills.

The revenue generated by such a tax would help to relieve the burden of higher energy bills for millions of families and businesses throughout the country and for my constituents in Birmingham, Hall Green. That would further help to sustain our economy. Money saved on energy bills can be spent on our high streets and in our small and medium-sized enterprises. Most importantly, this can help the families whose children get their only meal of the day at school. We can make school meals free for everyone. We can make sure that no child goes hungry. We can make sure that food banks, a landmark legacy of this Conservative Government, are eradicated and do not exist.

This is why I know the people of Birmingham, Hall Green are fully behind the proposal for a windfall tax. Unlike this Government, we will not simply sit back and watch as families are made poorer while energy companies continue to post profits and avoid paying their fair share in tax. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) said that energy companies had made a loss. No, they have not. No energy company has made a loss. What he means is that they did not make as much profit as they did in previous years. If they had made a loss, they would be among the energy companies that have folded and do not exist.

I would like to congratulate the Minister on his contribution, matching what we have seen in recent days in terms of the verbal diarrhoea from the Prime Minister. He is on a par with that.

10-point Plan: Six Months On

Tahir Ali Excerpts

Tuesday 18th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab) [V]]

Does the Secretary of State agree that wide-scale housing insulation is key to bringing down household emissions? If so, can he explain what possible rationale he had for axing the green homes grant scheme? Will he take this opportunity to publicly apologise to the businesses affected by the shambolic delivery of the green homes grant schemes, including those businesses that his Department failed to pay for the work that was carried out under the scheme in good faith, some of whom were reportedly forced to make staff redundant?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The accusation that BEIS somehow did not pay people who worked on the scheme is a very serious one and I need to investigate it. I do not think that was the case but, as I said, I will investigate.

As I have mentioned, the green homes grant was composed of three elements. One was the decarbonisation of public sector buildings through Salix, the public finance body, and another relied on local authorities to distribute funds to enhance social housing and decarbonise those buildings. Both those elements were successful. The other element related to owner-occupiers. It was a short-term scheme that was always designed to end at the end of March, which it did, and we are looking to develop a replacement.