Industrial Action

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

Of course, one reason that we have employed tens of thousands more nurses and doctors is to help to relieve the pressure post covid. We all understand that, given what happened with covid and what is now happening with flu, which is the worst it has been for 10 years, we are seeing particularly strong pressures on our hospitals. The point I am making today is that none of this is helped by the uncertainty. It is fine for workers to withdraw their labour—it is obviously a last resort, but we understand it—but please, give us an indication or a guarantee of where the safety level will be, and do so on a nationwide basis. In fairness to the Royal College of Nursing, it has done that. The ambulance unions, I am afraid, have not. We invite them to do so.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

The Government’s failed industrial relations approach has led to the worst strikes in decades. Sadly, they have often sought to scupper talks by throwing in last-minute spanners. Now, they propose going from clapping nurses to sacking nurses. The Secretary of State will be aware that the Transport Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill’s impact assessment stated that imposing minimum service levels could actually lead to an “increased frequency of strikes”. What exactly has changed in the past two months since that was published?

[Grant Shapps]

First of all, no one is talking about sacking nurses. I have just checked the figures: we have more than 44,000 more nurses since 2010, and more than 34,000 more doctors. There has been a big increase even from 2019. Nothing in the Bill we are announcing today is about getting rid of nurses, any more than any employment contract has to be followed. It is worth remembering that the pay that is on offer is as a result of the independent pay review body—bodies that the unions themselves called to be set up 20 years ago—being put into action.

I have heard union bosses make the point about last-minute spanners, which is completely untrue. I seem to be living rent free in Mick Lynch’s head at the moment—I have not even been close to these negotiations. The deal on the table is the same discussion that has always been there. Rather than parroting those lines, the hon. Gentleman might do better to check the facts and encourage the unions to put these offers to their members.

Fire and Rehire Tactics

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the use of fire and rehire tactics.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I am delighted to be able to bring this debate once again to Parliament, and to be able to combine it with a petition that has been signed by over 15,000 members of the public who, like me, feel passionately about this issue.

Ms McVey, I apologise if you are getting déjà vu, because just over a year ago I stood in this same room and spoke about this very matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) brought an important debate to the House and Members, on a cross-party basis, spoke eloquently for the rights of their constituents in the face of the repugnant practice of fire and rehire. Sadly, the fact that we are here again today is indicative of how little progress has been made by the Government, who have been hiding behind reports and consultations. There has been little concrete action.

Hon. Members would be forgiven for thinking that the Government have been somewhat distracted over recent weeks, as they have been embroiled in another employment debate a little closer to home: Operation Save Big Dog. They have been trying desperately to save the job of a blundering, misleading and morally bankrupt Prime Minister. It is the same old story from the Government: repeated promises, with no action. This is despite the fact that we are approaching the fifth anniversary of the Taylor review.

Hon. Members may recall that, in January 2022, I secured and led a parliamentary debate on the Taylor review and modern working practices. Many of us pressed the Government to keep their promises and initiate reform, but we have had absolutely no joy whatever. We have seen fire and rehire practices condemned by countless Ministers, and the employment Bill has been promised a staggering 20 times over the past three years. The Bill being published has a lot in common with the Prime Minister resigning: both are events that should have happened months ago and that are clearly supported by a majority of the public and MPs, only to be needlessly delayed by Tory incompetence. As they stall, however, unscrupulous employers act.

No less than 10% of workers have faced fire and rehire in their jobs. Almost a quarter of employees say their working terms have been downgraded since the first lockdown, and 800 loyal P&O Ferries workers have been scandalously sacked. All the Government can say is that their planned statutory code will be announced “in due course”. Given how often they say that, I am beginning to think that “in due course” might be their next manifesto pledge and slogan: “Get it done in due course.”

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It was not just the issue of the workers being laid off. It was about those whom P&O picked up, who did not know about or understand the health and safety issues on the ferries. That was part of the problem as well, because P&O took away the people who knew what to do and replaced them with people who, with great respect, did not have the same ability.

[Mr Dhesi]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, and that is why it is important that we have skilled workers who need be regarded for their loyalty to the job, and for their competence.

Call me cynical, but it seems that certain policies can be expedited over others, such as the Home Office having no difficulty in swiftly implementing the inhumane Rwanda policy or the Government pushing to break international law, or selling off the popular and successful Channel 4.

[Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend not think that part of the problem for the Government of the moment is that, if they try to expedite fire and rehire while we are trying to fire the current Prime Minister, they will unfortunately have to rehire him on worse terms and we will all suffer?

[Mr Dhesi]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and with a great deal of wit.

While the Government can do all the things that I have outlined, it seems that supporting workers’ rights has been abandoned at the bottom of the pile. It is not a priority for this Government, who seem to value their own job security above that of the average working person.

What does the Prime Minister expect from our great British workforce? Under this Government, are workers just meant to put up and shut up about their inadequate pay, conditions and benefits, without having adequate legal protections? Thankfully, due to the excellent work of unions such as Unite, Unison, GMB, the Transport Salaried Staffs Association or TSSA, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers or RMT, ASLEF and others, there is some support and respite from fire and rehire for employees. However, without legislation, I fear that this practice will persist.

It is clear that we need to outlaw fire and rehire. We do not need some sort of consultation but to outlaw it and urgently introduce a Bill to strengthen workers’ rights. Lip service will not stop fire and rehire; an effective ban will. However, Government plans on a statutory code fall woefully short and even then the Government are struggling to implement the bare minimum required. Current Government proposals would mean that the practice of fire and rehire remains legal, consultation procedures would not be improved and workers would continue to be dismissed for not agreeing to an inferior contract. Quite simply, all that that will achieve is to increase a company’s financial calculation before it uses fire and rehire tactics regardless.

We already know that the Government plans do not work. P&O Ferries calculated that it was financially worthwhile foregoing consultations, despite knowing that they were necessary, before cutting almost 800 jobs and replacing those employees with agency workers. P&O’s chief executive said:

“I would make this decision again, I’m afraid.”

Unscrupulous employers are acting without consequence. Companies have examined our current legislation, deemed that it is not fit for purpose and then exploited it. Failing to turn the tide now will be a green light for other employers to behave in exactly the same way.

P&O Ferries did not act in a vacuum. Its decision came after immoral fire and rehire tactics were used persistently throughout the pandemic. British Airways and other such companies were called “a national disgrace” by the Transport Committee for their actions, which put thousands of jobs at risk and led to my inbox being flooded by messages from concerned Slough constituents who work at Heathrow airport. Employees who had worked for BA for decades were threatened with being cast off at the beginning of a global pandemic, which is unforgivable. It was only due to the excellent work of unions on behalf of the workers involved that deals were reached and jobs were saved, but it should not have had to come to that.

British Gas, which is owned by Centrica, threatened the livelihoods of 5,000 employees, using the threat of coronavirus as a smokescreen to act unethically against many of my Slough constituents, and I know that many other right hon. and hon. Members’ constituents were also affected. Before an agreement was reached that brought the dispute to an end, there were 44 days of strike action and 500 workers were dismissed. Again, without the unions thousands more workers would have been left without a job and without representation.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman and I walked to this debate together from the main Chamber, where there is severe trade union bashing going on from the Government side. Is that not the reality of the current Government, namely that they are too busy bashing trade unions, not working with them?

[Mr Dhesi]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. That issue is exactly what we discussed as we made our way from the main Chamber into Westminster Hall. The Government are trying to pick a fight with unions rather than dealing with issues or coming to the negotiating table. For example, the hugely disruptive rail strikes, which will have an enormous impact on many of us, could have been resolved by now if Rail Ministers actually done the job that they were supposed to do.

As I was saying, quite frankly the Prime Minister has job security that employees can only dream of. Put simply, fire and rehire is not a negotiating tactic but a direct threat to workers, it has no place in our modern Great Britain, and the Government should be ashamed that fire and rehire has been allowed to proliferate on their watch.

I hope that the Minister has some good news for the thousands of people who have been affected by this abhorrent tactic, and for the millions more who could be at risk from it. It is disappointing that not a single Conservative colleague—apart from the Minister—has come to speak for their constituents. We should be acting in cross-party solidarity to battle against fire and rehire on our constituents’ behalf, and to press Ministers to finally introduce legislation.

We should have working standards that we are proud of and that celebrate our country’s fantastic workforce, but the Government seem intent on a race to the bottom when it comes to workers’ rights. Warm words will not do it any more; clear-cut legislation will.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

I will talk a little about that in answering the question from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), about what the Insolvency Service is doing in relation to P&O Ferries.

We engaged ACAS to better understand exactly what fire and rehire actually is. A lot of the reports in various media are not strictly about fire and rehire, because it is never quite as binary as it appears. However, there are some egregious examples, and I think we can all agree that we want to eliminate them, or at least push the bar so high that it is just not viable for employers to take that sort of action. As a result of the inability of P&O Ferries to hear not just what this House was saying but what the country was saying, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport set out the nine steps that we are taking to force it to rethink its decision and to prevent such cases from happening again in the maritime industry.

To come to the shadow Minister’s point, the Insolvency Service is now pursuing its own inquiries. It has commenced formal criminal and civil investigations into the circumstances around the redundancies. Those investigations are ongoing, so I am not in a position to comment any further on them for the time being, but I wish the Insolvency Service every speed in its efforts, as we all want a result that holds P&O Ferries to the highest account.

[Mr Dhesi]

I thank the Minister for outlining the statutory code and the Government guidance on improving working practices. To improve modern working practices, when will the Government finally legislate on the 51 recommendations that they accepted from the 2017 Taylor review?

[Paul Scully]

I will come to that in a moment.

I mentioned that ACAS has been helping us on both quantitative and qualitative data. We have moved to guidance, and are moving towards a statutory code, and my colleagues can see that action is taking place. Members have asked where my colleagues are. A number of them are in the main Chamber, tackling the issue of the rail strikes; if they go ahead, there is a distinct possibility that they will affect smaller businesses and workers. My colleagues are paying attention to that immediate risk to people up and down the country.

We have discussed fire and rehire on a number of occasions, and will continue to discuss it. As I have said, we want to eliminate the most egregious instances of its use. There has been a lot of conversation about the employment Bill. I must correct the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden): our manifesto commitment was not to bringing forward an employment Bill, but to bringing forward measures that might be put in it. I bore all my officials and civil servants with my talk of the difference between output and outcome. I doubt any worker with a rogue employer is thinking, “I wish there was an employment Bill.” They are probably thinking, “I need carer’s leave,” “I need neonatal leave,” or, “I need flexible working.” Those are the things that affect people up and down the country; it is not that they need a single piece of legislation, tied up with a bow. That would be neat, clearly, but it is the measures to which we are committed, and that we will deliver.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dhesi]

As a proud trade unionist, I am extremely grateful for the role that trade unions play in supporting their members and workers. I am also grateful to hon. Members from across the House—or perhaps I should say from across the Labour party, the SNP and the DUP, because not a single Conservative Member attended to support their constituents—for speaking eloquently about the need to stop this Dickensian practice, and to ensure that workers are not being levelled down.

Many of us are extremely irked by the fact that the Minister gave a lot of warm words but no action. There is no Bill to ban fire and rehire. There has been no mention of adopting into legislation the 51 recommendations that the Government accepted from the 2017 Taylor review of modern working practices. If the Minister is running out of ideas, I gently suggest that he should perhaps copy-paste the Labour party’s proposed Green Paper on employment rights. People will be left in no doubt from today’s debate that the Government are not on the side of workers.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Taylor Review of Modern Working Practices

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Wednesday 19th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[Judith Cummins (in the Chair)]

Before we begin, I remind Members that they are expected to wear face coverings when they are not speaking in the debate; this is in line with current Government and House of Commons Commission guidance. Members should leave the Chamber by the back entrance and remain safe at all times, keeping a distance.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of implementing the Taylor Review of modern working practices.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once again, Mrs Cummins. I am grateful to have secured the debate, and I welcome right hon. and hon. Members here today to discuss the Taylor review and employment rights.

“Good work: the Taylor review of modern working practices” was published on 11 July 2017, just a month after my election to this House—a most auspicious day—almost five years ago. What do the Government have to show for it? One would think that during that time workers’ rights would have been transformed, with Britain leading the way as the best place to work. Sadly, Government progress on the issue over the past five years has been characteristically disappointing—indeed, we have seen the explosion of the gig economy without proper rights or protections, the spread of immoral fire-and-rehire practices, a strained work-life balance, certain rights not given from day one and limited protections for the self-employed. Is that the record that the Minister wants our country to be proud of? The scale of sexual harassment experienced by some of our workforce is shocking: one in two women and seven in 10 LGBT+ workers have experienced sexual harassment at work. It is hardly surprising that we are back here to discuss the lack of progress.

Just seven out of the 53 Taylor review recommendations have been legislated on, even though the Government accepted 51 of the 53. We also have as yet to see the promised but elusive employment Bill. The full subsequent consultations have not had individual responses. Even the initial reaction to the Taylor review at the time was lukewarm. The Trades Union Congress noted that it was

“not the game-changer needed to end insecurity”

in work. Unison called the Government’s response to the review “no good”, saying

“it won’t work and it isn’t a plan.”

Perhaps I was being too optimistic in expecting the Government to act on this growing problem. Regardless, this is something that I cannot help but fight for, because I see the real-life consequences of their abject failures.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing such an important debate; he is making a brilliant speech. I know a number of gas workers, airways workers, and workers in warehouses and distribution centres who are suffering from fire and rehire. Some of them have gone through that process and the painful consequences for their families. Is this not just another example of all rhetoric and no delivery?

[Mr Dhesi]

I thank my hon. Friend, including for his leadership on behalf of his constituents, many of whom suffered from immoral fire-and-rehire practices. Let us not forget that, when my hon. Friend and other Members of this House tried to have that immoral practice banned, the Government blocked that attempt.

In my own constituency of Slough, I have been approached by private hire drivers dismissed without reason, working parents unable to pay their bills and companies underpaying their workers’ agreed wages. That is despite the excellent and enduring work of trade unions—the GMB, Unison, Unite, the Communication Workers Union, the RMT, Transport Salaried Staffs Association, Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, ASLEF and others—in fighting for the basic rights of their members to be upheld.

I appreciate that the modus operandi of the Government has historically been to under-deliver for working people, but, as Matthew Taylor noted, workers should be treated like human beings, not cogs in a machine. Work reflects the kind of society we want to live in, how we build our country’s future, what our priorities are, and the value we place on workers’ mental health. In this constantly evolving world, we cannot accept the status quo. People’s lives and livelihoods are at stake. No doubt the Minister today will hail Government successes on employment and will cite the growing numbers in work, but what we must not lose sight of is the quality of the jobs and not just the mere quantity. That is paramount. Having millions of people in insecure and damaging work is not a success.

Even prior to the pandemic, 4 million workers were in poverty—nearly half in full-time employment, but also in poverty. Will the Minister outline exactly how he plans to address the key issues already identified by the Taylor review?

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this timely debate. The Taylor review was a spectacular failure. We put a lot of store in the Government’s suggestion that it would be a panacea for workers’ rights, but it spectacularly failed. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that since 2017 the Government have shown huge disrespect to the 4 million working people in this country, who still, as my hon. Friend mentioned, live in poverty?

[Mr Dhesi]

My hon. Friend is right. What was considered by the Government to be a panacea has not transpired. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, the unions, the Trades Union Congress and others were not as amenable to what was proposed. Despite that, as I mentioned, 51 of the 53 recommendations were accepted by the Government, so why have so few been legislated for?

The review notes that the

“Government must take steps to ensure that flexibility does not benefit the employer, at the unreasonable expense of the worker, and that flexibility is genuinely a mutually beneficial arrangement.”

Under current arrangements, employees often work sometimes double their contracted hours, yet can often be penalised for doing so. There are reports of workers being unable to get mortgages, asked to take holiday time for hours outside of their contracts and having to deal with vastly different weekly payslips.

The Low Pay Commission recommended that the Government ensure that employees have the right to switch to a contract that reflects their normal working hours, so what steps are the Government taking following that? There should be a baseline level of security and predictability for workers, not flexibility that benefits only the employer.

The second issue I want to raise is sick pay. In the UK, we hold the grim record of having the lowest statutory sick pay in Europe. The Government are yet to remove the lower earnings limit from statutory sick pay, and it is still not a basic employment right for all workers, as outlined in the Taylor review. Someone should not have to choose between health and financial hardship, so my question for the Minister is very straightforward: why is that still the case, even after a devastating pandemic?

It is clear that over the past two years the coronavirus pandemic has disproportionately affected some key groups—especially the self-employed, many of whom fell through the gaps of Government support. I will be interested to hear from the shadow Employment Rights Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders); I am sure the Labour party would ensure that the self-employed could withdraw their labour due to immediate health and safety risks, would strengthen blacklisting protection and would enable a health and safety representative for those workers, ensuring that they have the same protections as the employed. Does the Minister not share those ambitions? Do the Government not want to empower workers’ entrepreneurial and independent spirit to create their own work?

Another group acutely impacted were those threatened with fire and rehire, including constituents of mine from Slough who worked for the one in 10 companies that used that abhorrent practice during the pandemic. Thousands of loyal workers were sidelined and at the mercy of inadequate working conditions and protections. We need transformational change, as my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) outlined in his green paper on employment rights: legally redefining the work relationship; ending the qualifying periods before certain rights are granted; tackling discriminatory working practices; and ensuring the safety and security of jobs.

[Ian Lavery]

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a fully paid-up member of a number of trade unions. My hon. Friend mentioned fire and rehire. The Government had a great opportunity only weeks ago to support the private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) regarding fire and rehire. The Government refused to allow that Bill to go forward. What does that say about the Government’s intentions for the rest of the Taylor review?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dhesi]

What that shows us is that the Government are all talk and no action. On umpteen occasions they have extolled their virtues and what they would be doing—“the party of workers”. They are actually acting against the interests of workers through their own actions. Like my hon. Friend, I am a proud trade unionist because it is through collective action that so much can be achieved. Trade unions were promised on numerous occasions that the Government would help workers to get the practice of fire and rehire banned. Despite the private Member’s Bill from my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North, that unfortunately did not transpire.

In conclusion, our ambition as a nation should be simple: every working person in the UK should be able to have a job that is fulfilling, pays fairly and provides adequate benefits. That is a straightforward ask, which would not only benefit millions of working people but is the right thing to do, so why are the Government not doing it?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dhesi]

I am extremely grateful to the House authorities for allocating time to debate the Taylor review of modern working practices. We know that there are many good employers in our country, but juxtaposed with those are some very unscrupulous individuals and organisations, which is why we need rights in legislation. I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken so eloquently and passionately about the discrimination faced by many of their constituents in their workplaces, whether that is the gender pay gap or the ethnic pay gap.

However, what is palpable today is that we have heard from the Minister some very warm words, but a lack of detail. There are no dates, as I highlighted at the outset and was evident from other Members’ interventions. The Taylor review—the Government’s own commissioned review—came up with 53 recommendations, 51 of which were accepted by the Government. However, only seven have been legislated for. We were looking to hear from the Minister today, on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government, when the rest of them would be implemented—when the almost mythical employment Bill would finally come before the House. Sadly, we have heard none of those answers, which will be a great disappointment to many in our country, whether that is the trade union movement or the good working people of our country. I sincerely hope that very soon, on the back of this debate, we will get those answers.

I thank you very much again, Mrs Cummins, and thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their much-needed contributions.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of implementing the Taylor Review of modern working practices.

Animal Testing

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Monday 25th October 2021 Westminster Hall

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. I am grateful to speak in such an important debate; official parliamentary petitions on the banning of animal testing have gained hundreds of thousands of signatures from people across our country. As Members here today will know, this was not the intended day for this debate. Sadly, remembrance proceedings following the shocking death of one of our colleagues meant that this debate was rightly postponed. I send my heartfelt condolences to the wife and family of my hon. Friend, Sir David Amess. We have lost a parliamentarian of enormous experience, intellect and warmth. He was someone with an infectious smile, and used that cheeky smile without being reprimanded by Mr Speaker when he somehow squeezed into virtually every single debate the need to make Southend-on-Sea a city. Sir David also did a great deal of work on animal rights. As the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) mentioned, I am very sure that he would have spoken in today’s debate. He was responsible for introducing the Protection against Cruel Tethering Act 1988; he campaigned against puppy mills and wildlife trafficking; and, this year, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) noted, he tabled an early-day motion to end animal experiments.

We need to adopt modern methods that do not require the suffering of animals. That is why we are all here today; it is in the spirit of kindness, co-operation and humanity that this issue should be considered. In 1998, animal testing on ingredients exclusively used in cosmetics was banned in our country. That same year, we saw a modern-day low point of 2.7 million procedures involving animals, even though the overwhelming majority of that testing was unsuccessful, as my hon. Friends the Members for Easington (Grahame Morris) and for Putney (Fleur Anderson) noted. That testing proved to be of absolutely no use for human advancement. It peaked in 2015 to 4.1 million procedures, and while the number of experiments had been falling, last year there was a 6% rise since 1997. Previous statistics have indicated that we have topped the grim leader board for the most animal experiments per person in the European Union. Our three Rs policy to replace, reduce and refine, limiting the number of animals used in science and pushing licence applicants to consider alternatives is clearly not having the desired effect. That is why I feel the Government need to change their policy.

We are a nation of animal lovers. My inbox is often overflowing with concerns about animal rights and legislation impacting on animals. Survey after survey indicates that public acceptance of animal testing is dependent on there being no viable alternative. How can we allow such barbarity within our science when modern-day alternatives exist? Innovations such as complex cell models—CCMs—offer the potential to use human tissue to provide data that is far more relevant to patients than animals tests, and could even replace animal procedures in their entirety. There are a plethora of approaches; some areas of research are even being held back by animal testing. A recent report on Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s research noted that an

“important obstacle to progress in the field of neurodegenerative diseases is the heavy reliance on animal models which are failing to capture key features of human biology and disease.”

This shows that, in part, moving forward and modernising our scientific trials and testing can benefit both humans and animals, making scientific methods more relevant to human health.

As a vegetarian—and as noted by other speakers—I feel that we should be a world leader in scientific innovation. Have we not moved on from such brutal acts on sentient beings who have no say? Sadly, the Government’s record on protecting animals is not promising. As usual, they focus on grandiose language and gestures rather than implementing policy that will effect change. They delay animal welfare legislation on the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill and on increasing sentences for animal cruelty, and instead choose to legislate on trophy hunting rather than the simpler and more effective measure of the Home Secretary simply no longer issuing licences.

Recent media reports suggest that the Home Office could pave the way for a return to animal testing for cosmetics, so I ask the Minister today for the Government’s plan. We need a review of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. We need to commit to properly ending animal testing for good, ensuring that we eliminate avoidable procedures on animals, and banning the export and import of animals for research unless with specific Home Office consent; and we need to commit to proper investment in non-animal-based research methods and technologies to encourage further innovation and work in this field.

We need to use this opportunity to press forward and invest in our future with the scope and opportunities for change. If the Government fail to grasp this challenge, I fear that this outdated practice will simply proliferate.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Freeman]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I was about to say that the National Institute for Health Research—for which I was responsible in my previous ministerial role but one, as Minister for life sciences—puts about £1 billion a year into research on the practice of health. I will happily raise the issue with the relevant Minister at the Department for Health and Social Care, because quite important part of the NIHR’s remit is to build confidence in health research.

The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) raised the important issue of accountability on the rate of progress, and the opportunities arising from the UK’s departure from the EU. I will try to come to all those issues in due course, and if for any reason I miss any, I will happily write to Members with the answer that I would have given had I had time.

I am personally passionate about this agenda for a whole raft of reasons, not just because I have a much beloved cat and dog as pets. Like everyone in the Chamber, and I think most people in this House, I feel very strongly that we have a duty of care as human beings to the animals around us. Also, having had a career in medical research before coming to Parliament in 2010, I have seen for myself the importance both of using every piece of technology to try to remove dependence on animals in the development of medicines and of carrying public trust in the research process with us.

As hon. Members have set out, in the life science sector a quiet revolution is going on, in which the traditional model of drug discovery—which typically takes 15 years and $2 billion, and has an 80% failure rate—is being quietly transformed by revolutions in genomics and informatics, allowing us to move from a paradigm in which the industry would typically try to develop one drug that suits all through a long and complex cycle of theoretical drug discovery targeting, in silico chemistry, then through into in vitro models, animal trials, human trials, and marketing and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence approval.

The revolution in genomics and informatics allows us to begin to target patient groups, develop drugs around particular blood types, genotypes and phenotypes, and cut out a lot of the long, traditional drug discovery process. It is a revolution that I am passionate about, not just because it will in due course reduce, and possibly even eradicate, the need for us to rely on often unreliable animal models. Members will have heard me talk in other places about the need to move away from necessary but imperfect models of human disease.

[Mr Dhesi]

The Minister is being generous with his time. I take on board his points about the quiet revolution in genomics and medical science more generally, but while that is taking place, millions of animals are being terrorised and killed. It is not benefiting us or them, so when will we set some deadlines and targets for the elimination of animal testing?

[George Freeman]

I understand the hon. Member’s point and I will come to it. I could not quite agree that our reliance at the moment on animal testing is of no use at all; it is of important use in defining certain elements of toxicity and safety. It is not perfect, but to say that it has no use is not fair. I will come to his point about how quickly we need to make progress.

Part of my passion for this is that I tried to found a company developing toxicology artificial intelligence—predictive software that would predict the toxicology of compounds so that we do not have to rely on animal models. I care sufficiently about it that I took the trouble to do that. Let me share with colleagues one thing that I discovered in that process, which speaks to the delicacy sometimes around transparency. Passions in this sector understandably run very high. I know that colleagues will be shocked to discover that, in the course of putting together a company to develop toxicology software, one needs to be able to understand the experiments that are currently being done in order to model them better using software. That meant that on the board of the company we had somebody from Huntingdon Life Sciences so that we could understand the processes that we were having to replace.

The presence of that person on the board was alone sufficient to attract huge and violent attacks from Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty. Of course, who on the board did they pick on? Was it any of the eight men, of whom I was one? No. They picked on the company secretary—the member of the board least responsible for the company. She lived alone in a cottage in the fens, and woke in the middle of the night to find 20 people in balaclavas daubing her house with red paint, calling her a bunny killer. I flag that story because it speaks to the passions and the need for a balanced approach, in the way that colleagues have raised the issue today.

If we are to be transparent and accountable, we need to ensure that that transparency and accountability can be shared, and that we are not putting particular people at risk. However, I share the point that we need to do everything we can to ensure that the quiet revolution accelerates, and that we reduce the reliance on animals for research as fast as we possibly can and to as great an extent as we can.

Allow me to describe briefly the framework that we have in place. Why is the use of animals in scientific research justified at all? It is justified because, at the moment, it is vital for identifying benefits to humans, animals and the environment. We have to try to balance that dependence with our commitment to the highest animal welfare standards. That is the basis on which the current law is drafted. The balance between those two elements is reflected in the fact that we have a dedicated Act to make sure that animal welfare and animal research are properly integrated. The responsibility for managing that Act lies with the Home Office and the Home Secretary, not with me, but I will raise the issues mentioned today with the Home Office.

The Act specifies that animals can be used in science only for specific limited purposes where there are no alternatives—a crucial point—and provides protection for those animals through the requirement for application of the three Rs: replacement, reduction and refinement. Today’s debate raised three related but separate issues that contribute to the Government's overall strategic direction and policy: first, the benefits derived from the use of animals in science where there are, as yet, no alternatives; secondly, the regulatory regime that facilitates such use; and thirdly, our support and commitment to the funding of the three Rs in order to accelerate progress away from reliance.

Let me take each in turn. At the moment, animal testing research plays a vital role in understanding how biological systems work in health and disease. It is crucial to our understanding of new medicines and cutting-edge medical technologies for both humans and animal health, and it supports the safety and sustainability of our environment by helping to reduce dependency on chemicals. Animal research has helped us to make life-changing discoveries for new vaccines and medicines, transplant procedures, anaesthetics and blood transfusions —not least the development of the covid-19 vaccine, which was made possible because of animal research.

While I accept that we need to try to move away as quickly as possible, one must remember that we are using animals only because it is the way we have evolved towards minimising exposure of human beings to dangerous drugs. I assure hon. Members that if we were to completely remove all animal use from medicines research, we would expose our own kith and kin to much higher risks. That would quickly be seen as irresponsible.

We need to find a way of substituting those pre-human tests as quickly as possible. Although much research can be done into non-animal models, there are still purposes for which, sadly, it is essential to use live animals, as the complexity of whole biological mammalian systems cannot always be replicated using validated non-animal methodologies. That is especially the case where human medicines are developed.

UK Steel Production: Greensill Capital

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Thursday 25th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

For national security reasons, to tackle the climate crisis, and to build our rail infrastructure, electric vehicles and the like with well-paid unionised jobs, domestic steel production must be a strategic national priority. However, time and again the Government have let down Britain’s steel industry. On their watch, we have seen British Steel collapse, minimal action taken to tackle the huge handicap of high energy prices for our steelmakers, and an over-reliance on imported steel for Government projects. Prior to Brexit, the excuse for the lack of Government intervention was EU state aid rules. What is the excuse now?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

There is no “excuse now”. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman lost me rather when he said that the Government have done nothing. We have heard from all around the House the devastating impact of the last Labour Government on the steel industry. I even took a question from an extremely able Conservative Member, my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young), whose seat was represented by a Liberal Democrat, because of the debacle around the closure of SSSI.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

My right hon. Friend is right that the challenge of making all our homes energy-efficient and moving to net zero is enormous. I thank him for his leadership, as Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, in looking in depth at some of the vital issues, to help us not only to solve the technical and financial challenges but to encourage our constituents to make changes to reduce their power and heat usage through efficiency.

We have a strong track record in improving the energy performance of our homes over the past decade, with 40% above energy performance certificate band C —up from only 9% in 2008. We are also funding the first hydrogen-powered homes in Gateshead and allocating more than £500 million this year alone to improve the energy efficiency of 50,000 households in social and local authority housing throughout the UK.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

What plans he has to support supply chain businesses affected by the covid-19 pandemic.

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

At the Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced an extra £425 million in additional restrictions grant funding to local authorities, which means that more than £2 billion has been made available to local authorities since November 2020. This discretionary funding enables local authorities to support businesses, including businesses in supply chains that are impacted by restrictions but ineligible for other measures.

[Mr Dhesi]

Given that the UK has suffered the worst recession of any major economy, businesses in Slough and throughout our country find themselves in a precarious position. To help them, the Government should have brought forward a plan that includes debt restructuring and a job guarantee for the young. Despite repeated requests, an estimated 3 million people—including taxi drivers, plumbers, other self-employed people and sole traders—find themselves with absolutely no support at all from the Government. What does the Minister say to people who have worked hard their entire lives, paid their taxes and now find themselves and their businesses up against the wall and collapsing, through no fault of their own?

[Amanda Solloway]

Indeed, we do find ourselves in unprecedented times, but the Government have been so committed in all the things we have done. We have committed to providing additional support for small and medium-sized enterprises as restrictions are lifted, and businesses will continue to benefit from Government-guaranteed finance throughout 2021. On young people, the apprenticeship scheme we are offering is second to none.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Tuesday 9th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

It is now one year since the first tragic deaths in the UK from covid-19 were reported, and the true scale of this crisis became clear. Thousands have lost their lives to this terrible virus, and, sadly, we now have the worst death toll in Europe. Our economy has been convulsed by a collapse in GDP, a spike in unemployment, and a crisis for businesses, especially in arts, aviation and hospitality, which have been made worse by Government inaction and blunders and billions being wasted on Tory crony covid contracts.

Shamefully, we are now facing the worst economic crisis of any major economy. Therefore we might have hoped for a bold Budget that recognised the scale of the challenge, equipping our economy for the future, but all the Chancellor has shown is that he is completely out of touch with what this country needs. What did this Budget promise? The centrepiece for long-term investment is a national infrastructure bank. It is almost 10 years since David Cameron launched the green investment bank, with all the same promises and rhetoric, and it is four years since the Conservatives privatised it. What we need is an investment bank capitalised at £20 billion over five years at least, with regional investment banks in every region to invest in green businesses throughout our country. We need an institutional champion for green businesses and jobs. Instead, we got a get-rich-quick scheme for investors. This Budget could have provided the platform for a green recovery, just as Slough is attempting to do in Berkshire.

We could have had a major national rail electrification programme to help decarbonise our transport, but, no. I welcome the £20 million for floating offshore wind technology, but that is paltry compared with the scale of the challenge. In reality, we need a £30 billion green economic recovery package to create 400,000 green secure jobs. That is how we would get a proper investment-led recovery to help us meet our carbon targets and help tackle the climate crisis.

This could have been a Budget for the next generation, creating jobs and housing, investing in education and safeguarding the climate for younger people, but they have all been overlooked yet again. A Budget is a statement of values and priorities, and the Chancellor’s priorities are transparent: no extra funding to fix fire-hazard cladding, but a tax break for second home owners; a mere 1% rise for the NHS workers who have given their all for us during the past year; no mention at all of the Government’s trade deal with the EU and the 4% reduction in GDP over 15 years caused by the thin, terrible, burned oven-ready Brexit deal. This is a Budget that stores up trouble for places such as Slough and hits the poorest hardest.

Vauxhall at Ellesmere Port and Battery Manufacturing Strategy

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Monday 1st March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The Faraday battery challenge is a key part of the industrial strategy, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) had a key role in implementing. It has made extraordinary progress in the past two or three years. I would be very happy to pick this issue up with my hon. Friend. Over the next 10 years, I think we will see a complete transformation in the battery technology he talks about.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

As a proud electric car owner, I am glad that to support our automotive manufacturing industry and to boost its competitiveness, Labour has called for an ambitious investment in electric vehicle technology, including the electric battery supply chain, through a £30 billion green economic recovery. Does the Secretary of State agree that that strategic investment would support manufacturers like Vauxhall and give them the long-term confidence they need to build new electric models right here in the UK?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I agree with a lot of what the hon. Gentleman says. What I would say, and how I would slightly re-tilt the emphasis, is that there is Government investment, which we have—and we are committed to £12 billion through the 10-point plan—but also private investment. If we look at the success of offshore wind, we see that it was driven largely by the investment of private capital. Exactly the same thing will happen in respect of the net zero challenge. That is why we are in conversations with the private company to secure that investment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)]

What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government on the effect of the covid-19 outbreak on businesses trading on the high street.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government on the effect of the covid-19 outbreak on businesses trading on the high street.

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

My Department has regular discussions with Housing, Communities and Local Government colleagues on the impact of covid-19 on high street businesses. We have provided unprecedented support to high street businesses. Pubs, shops, and hotels will pay no business rates for 12 months; eligible retail, hospitality and leisure businesses have received cash grants of up to £25,000; and businesses that cannot pay their rent because of coronavirus will be protected from eviction.

[Paul Scully]

One of the reasons we launched the £617 million discretionary fund was so that we can reach more businesses, but clearly we need to reopen safely non-essential retail, as started yesterday. We need to monitor that. We need to make sure that opening up our economy is the best way, along with the flexible support that we are giving, to make sure that it can start to bounce back, including in Jarrow.

[Mr Dhesi]

Economically, my constituency has been especially hard hit by the coronavirus crisis, with almost 19,000 employees having been furloughed. But while some businesses have been able to gain access to Government grants and schemes, numerous independent and family-run businesses have not been able to do so and have fallen between the cracks of Government support. Will the Minister urgently review the Government grant and loan schemes, particularly for our high street businesses, so that they too can benefit from them and our towns do not become ghost towns, or mere carbon copies, because we would then lose our much loved independent businesses?

[Paul Scully]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight the plight of independent businesses. That is why I was pleased to go to Northcote Road in Clapham to see what they were doing there and the community spirit that brings them together. We always look at the flexibility of support, but we will also make sure, with the safe opening of shops now, that the new normal is coupled with a future view of the high street—the new reality, with changing behaviour of consumers—so that in the years to come independent shopkeepers can sustain and indeed thrive as local businesses on the high street.

A Green Industrial Revolution

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend is a great champion for his constituency and for Cornwall more widely. In many ways, Cornwall is playing a major role in our moves toward net zero, and we in my Department will always be happy to talk to him about that.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

I will make more progress before giving way again.

Crucial to this debate is the UK’s global leadership. The UK contributes only about 1% of global emissions, and that figure is falling. We cannot solve the challenge of global climate change just by doing the right thing at home, so we are using our strength to help to transform the world, from doubling our international climate finance contribution to nearly £12 billion to using our £1 billion Ayrton fund to support the world’s most vulnerable—for example, by designing clean stoves for the billions who rely on firewood. In 10 months’ time, COP26 in the fantastic UK city of Glasgow will be a seminal moment for climate action, as well as a massive opportunity for British business—a giant global shop window for the UK’s clean tech prowess, with countries across the world heading home with their pockets crammed full of British ideas, technology and expertise.

[Mr Dhesi]

The Secretary of State mentioned electric vehicles and charging points, and Slough Borough Council, in my constituency, is leading the way in Berkshire. Although we gratefully receive platitudes regarding the good work of local authorities, what measures will the Government put in place to support excellent councils financially, in addition to those mere platitudes?

[Andrea Leadsom]

There are far too many initiatives for me to talk about now at the Dispatch Box, but one example is the £1 billion that was recently announced for electric charging infrastructure. If the hon. Gentleman writes to me, I shall send him a full submission on the subject.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

My hon. Friend is right. It is important to note that markets are incentivised by robust targets, but that targets alone are not enough. They need to sit alongside a robust industrial strategy that supports our industries, all the way through from our steel sector to our automotive sector, so that they are capable of delivering the change at the pace that is required.

[Mr Dhesi]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that, despite the grand statements from the Government, they are missing all the targets that they are putting in place due to their own mediocre measures? Does she also agree that the cuts to renewable energy subsidies need to be reversed, and that we need to ensure that the Government work towards jobs in the green industries—unionised jobs? Rather than just talking a good game, the Government actually need to deliver.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

My hon. Friend is spot on.

We need to be honest that we are off track when it comes to meeting our targets, inadequate as they are. In fact, according to the Committee on Climate Change—the Government’s official advisers—the UK is even off track with regard to meeting its old target of an 80% reduction by 2050. The UK’s CO₂ emissions fell by only 2% between 2017 and 2018. Politics aside, that is nowhere near good enough. Let us be honest about what it means. It is not like failing an exam or a driving test. Failing on climate change means devastating fires sweeping across Australia and the Amazon. It means critical threats to food security, water security and the entire ecosystem, on which we all depend.