Business of the House

Debate between Barry Gardiner and Rosie Winterton

Thursday 14th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

We do have to be very careful if there are any ongoing cases.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I am sure the Leader of the House will join me in my praise and thanks to London’s Community Kitchen and the Sufra food bank, which do such wonderful work in my constituency, but will she do more? In the new year, will she hold a debate in this place about the work of food banks across the country, not just so that we can praise and thank them for all that they do, but so that we can make them redundant?

Net Zero by 2050

Debate between Barry Gardiner and Rosie Winterton

Monday 16th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

We have another debate to follow. I will try to get everybody in, but I will prioritise those Members who have not already asked questions in previous statements or who did not get in. Brevity would be much appreciated in both questions and answers.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I value the cross-party consensus that this country has enjoyed for the past 20 years, which is responsible for some of the strenuous targets that the Secretary of State has outlined. However, I was disappointed by the Prime Minister’s statement and, indeed, the tone of the Secretary of State’s remarks today. In the spirit of cross-party consensus, will she set out a hierarchy for the utilisation of the 10 MW of low-carbon hydrogen that the Government have now committed to, so that the limited supply of hydrogen power is delivered first to high-energy users such as those in the steel, ceramics, glass and cement sectors who need the extra heat that electricity cannot provide?

Illegal Migration Bill

Debate between Barry Gardiner and Rosie Winterton

Tuesday 7th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary will be aware that the bulk of the 500,000 people she says have come through safe and legal routes are from Ukraine and Hong Kong. Regarding Afghanistan, she will also know that, in the whole of the last year, since the new safe route was put in place, only 22 individuals from Afghanistan have been accepted through that route. Is it any surprise to the Home Secretary, then, that 8,500 Afghans made a small boat crossing to the UK last year? Having rendered meaningless any safe and legal route from Afghanistan, where does the Home Secretary believe she derives the moral authority to criminalise those 8,500 people simply because of their mode of travel?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. It is really important, if we are going to get everybody in, that the questions are very short, as the answers have been. It is really important for colleagues to remember that.

Autumn Statement Resolutions

Debate between Barry Gardiner and Rosie Winterton

Monday 21st November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I would like to start on a note of agreement—because I probably will not end up on one. The supply shocks after the covid pandemic, followed by the war in Ukraine and Putin’s weaponising of the gas supply to Europe, are the primary reasons for inflation and the cost of living crisis. But they are not the whole story. Analysis of data from company accounts and the Office for National Statistics suggests that there is an additional level of profiteering that the Government have failed to address.

Let me substantiate that claim. If companies were simply passing on increased supply chain costs, we would expect company profits to be broadly static, or even slightly reduced, given that low wages have been unable to keep pace and therefore would have reduced demand. In fact, profit margins for the UK’s biggest listed companies on the FTSE 350 were 73% higher than pre-pandemic levels.

When companies raise their prices to cover their increased costs, that is justifiable; when they increase their prices by more than their increased costs, that is gouging and it gives them a boost in profit. The trouble is that this can then create a second, third and fourth wave of inflation as companies along the supply chain all follow suit. This is the real inflationary spiral. Workers’ wage demands are not driving it; they are following it and responding to it in desperation, as workers see their living standards eroded first by genuine inflationary pressures and then by profiteering.

Many companies respond badly to the accusation that they are price gouging. In April, Sainsbury’s reported a record profit of £730 million. The supermarket insisted that it was not price gouging, but it was not above accusing its competitors, which were making even higher profits, of doing precisely that. Sainsbury’s chief executive Simon Roberts said:

“We are inflating behind the market, our direct competitors are inflating ahead of the market.”

I take that to mean: “We are only profiteering because we don’t want our share price to decline against our competitors who started profiteering first.” As protestations of innocence go, that one does not really go far.

When so many companies are making record profits at a time of soaring inflation, the logical expectation is that they should be able to pay their workers at least enough to maintain their standard of living, yet employers and the Government insist on wage restraint, by which they mean workers accepting wage settlements that are a cut in real terms. They think that is the key to managing inflation. I say again that wage demands have not and are not driving inflation.

Food prices are causing real misery in the UK. Food price inflation is running at over 16%, yet Tesco, Sainsbury’s and Asda increased their combined profits, compared with pre-covid levels, by a staggering 97%. Many of their customers—even their own workers—earn so little that they are on universal credit. This Government are presiding over a system that is happy to see companies grind down workers’ wages to funnel more and more public money through universal credit into shareholders’ dividends. It is obscene.

What about the food manufacturers? They made a profit of £22.9 billion after the pandemic. Nestlé alone showed a profit of £13.7 billion, more than £4 billion more than its pre-pandemic level. Yet in July, after a two-month strike at its east London factory, Nestlé agreed to settle with its workers for a miserly 4%. The workers had asked for 7.5%, which, as we now see, would still have meant a real-terms cut in their living standards. It is not workers who are being unreasonable.

Remember that in the UK we have approximately 2.5 million children who have been using food banks, and then ask why the four giant agribusinesses managed to increase their profits by 255% compared with pre-covid levels. Probably the most blatant example of profiteering and gouging, though, comes from the container shipping industry. The sector is dominated by three alliances of major multinational giants and, together, they control 85% of the world’s container trade. Some might call that a cartel. Only eight of the top 10 container companies have yet reported their latest profits. They are not up by 200%. They are not up by 2,000%. Their combined profits are up by 20,650%, compared with pre-pandemic levels. No wonder they managed to pay out £4.7 billion to their shareholders last year. No wonder P&O, under DP World, is now back in the container business. That brand is so well-known in Parliament for the disgusting treatment of its own workers, and its directors’ total disregard for the law.

When Members speak of the cost of living crisis, attribute it all to Putin and covid, and attempt to blame ordinary working people for fuelling inflation, they should understand that it is a perfectly reasonable request for ordinary people to say that after 12 years of declining real wages, they should not lose out yet again when inflation is at a 40-year high.

Our Government, and more especially those on my party’s own Front Bench, need to be making the case that workers are not causing this inflation spiral. They need to listen to what some of the companies themselves are saying. In a survey of retailers earlier this year, 56% of companies said that inflation had allowed them to raise prices beyond what was required to offset increased costs. Some 63% of larger companies reported that they were using inflation to “boost profits”. BP’s chief executive has referred to his business as a “cash machine”, and BMW’s chief financial officer has said that the company has

“a significant improvement in pricing power”.

When companies themselves tell us that they are ripping us off, it is time for politicians to listen and to act. Ordinary families should not have to pay the price.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

A perfect eight minutes.

Energy Prices Bill

Debate between Barry Gardiner and Rosie Winterton

2nd reading
Monday 17th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck; and if it looks like a tax and takes money like a tax, it is a tax.

This Bill introduces another windfall tax, not on the oil and gas producers but on the renewables producers. It is in the form of a cap on the revenues that renewable and nuclear companies can make. The electricity price is set on the basis of the wholesale gas price, and when the gas price went up companies saw an increase in the price they were paid for the electricity that they produced, although they did not have to pay the increased gas prices to produce it. When the Minister for Climate, the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), told the Select Committee the other day that this was not a windfall tax, his official tried to persuade us that it was simply a reframing of the regulations, but in fact the Government are trying to force those companies into a retrospective contract for difference, and they should be honest about it.

But look who benefits! The Government continue to allow the oil and gas companies to make excess profits from the global crisis, and also give them a way to claw back the windfall tax under the investment allowance scheme by claiming as a tax break 91p in every pound they invest in more production in the North sea. The Minister must explain why the Government are compensating these companies for the windfall tax, and also why the renewables companies—which are the ones we really need to incentivise to invest in more capacity—are being hit by this revenue cap, while not being given a similar investment allowance.

Before the temporary windfall tax the UK levied the lowest tax take from its oil and gas producers anywhere in the world, and even with the temporary windfall tax it still taxes a full 6% below the global average. If the UK taxed these companies even at the global average, it would recover an extra £13.4 billion for the Exchequer each year. The Committee on Climate Change wrote to the previous Chancellor—when he was the previous Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy but one—saying that he should support a tighter limit on production with stringent tests and a presumption against exploration. He took no notice, and the measures in this Bill are the consequences of the Government’s now being forced to protect consumers and business from their past failure to invest in renewables.

Last year, energy prices meant that an average family was paying £1,100. After the windfall tax and the unfunded borrowing, that will now be limited to an average of £2,500. The cost would, for the two years, be £31 billion, but given the statement from—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order.

Protecting and Restoring Nature: COP15 and Beyond

Debate between Barry Gardiner and Rosie Winterton

Thursday 14th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend made that intervention at precisely that moment, because it enables me to talk about green finance, and the importance of involving the private sector and ensuring that critical private finance is coming in. Green bonds and debt-for-biodiversity swaps are innovative and fundamental ways in which we should facilitate countries such as Belize to tackle the environmental problems they face. It cannot be done without money, and it cannot be done simply with public money. In fact, green bonds are now classed as more attractive than ordinary, vanilla bonds, because they tackle not one issue, but two; they mitigate risk on two factors. The secondary market in green bonds has really taken off.

I want to talk about the way in which the financial sector needs to be regulated and guided through the issue. The right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell spoke about the way in which our financial sector was incentivising deforestation, particularly in Brazil. He is absolutely correct. We should not simply say, as is the Government’s position, that companies need to declare their climate and sustainability actions in their mandatory annual reporting, and that they should not fund any activity, such as ranching in Brazil, that drives illegal deforestation. That is not good enough. When those stipulations were put in place, countries such as Brazil simply changed the law to make it legal so that they could continue to receive the finance. There must be objectivity about whether something is or is not deforestation.

I am conscious that I should not take up too much more time, but it is critical that COP15 addresses access and benefit sharing. We will not have global agreement and global co-operation on the environment and our failing global biodiversity unless biopiracy by pharmaceutical companies is addressed. These companies must not go into communities—my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central referred to this—and say, “We are going to take the genetic sequences of these two trees and use them in our pharmaceutical products, but you will not get any advantages from it.” That is why the UK must be foursquare behind access and benefit sharing at COP15.

An ecosystem has the right to exist, to flourish, to regenerate its vital cycles and to evolve naturally without human disruption. Nature has rights. We often think that rights apply only to us, but trusts and institutions have rights, and those rights are safeguarded by trustees and guardians. That is us. Nobody else is here to argue for nature. We must be the guardians of that trust. We have been on this planet for only 0.13% of the time that biodiversity has existed. We have no right to destroy the world around us.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson, Deidre Brock.

P&O Ferries and Employment Rights

Debate between Barry Gardiner and Rosie Winterton

Monday 21st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is absolutely correct: nothing in my Bill would ultimately have stopped fire and rehire, and that was with the full cognisance of the 22 unions that supported it. As she knows, however, there were measures in the Bill that would have prevented the current situation.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Let me say this before the hon. Lady responds to the intervention: I recognise that important points are being made, but if there are interventions it would be helpful, to ensure that we can get everyone in, for Members to try to stick to the original time limit.

Employment and Trade Union Rights (Dismissal and Re-engagement) Bill

Debate between Barry Gardiner and Rosie Winterton

Friday 22nd October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

The hon. Lady needs to answer the first intervention before taking another.

Protecting Britain’s Steel Industry

Debate between Barry Gardiner and Rosie Winterton

Monday 21st June 2021 Commons Chamber

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

One of the reasons that I spent so many hours in Committee opposing the Trade Bill in the previous Parliament was to avoid precisely the sort of nonsense that we are discussing today. The recommendation by the TRA to remove safeguards on nine out of 19 product categories takes us back five years to the crisis that we experienced in 2016. It will leave half of steel products exposed to a flood of imports. We know this because prior to the introduction of the current steel safeguards, UK imports of steel increased by 25% between 2013 and 2017, severely undermining our own industry.

The Government failed to ensure that the TRA would protect and defend British producers. They engineered the membership of the body such that not only does the Secretary of State maintain full control of who is appointed and what its remit will be, but no voice can even be raised to temper the Government’s dogmatic fixation on what their own warped vision of free trade happens to be.

Labour tabled a series of amendments to ensure a level playing field for British industry. The Government voted down every single one of those amendments—and now where are we? We are left with a whole industry that is rightly angry and confused: confused as to why trade unions and employers were not consulted at any stage in respect of the TRA recommendations; confused as to why the TRA has shown such a lack of understanding about the interconnectedness of the industry, as assessment of product categories separately cannot provide an accurate picture of the threat of an increase in imports, nor the damage that it would cause; confused as to why out-of-date data was used that does not include volumes of smaller imports, where there was an increase in 17 of the 19 product categories that the TRA has simply not accounted for; and confused as to why, at a time when the EU and US are maintaining their safeguards, we are stripping ours away.

This decision will leave our market open to import surges just as the sector recovers from covid-19, and at a time when our exports to the EU and US will still be subject to tariffs and quotas. It is reported that the EU and the US are in bilateral negotiations to end tariffs on steel products with a deadline of the end of the year. So, well done to the Secretary of State—it looks as if she has engineered a situation where our steel exporters will not only be undermined in their own domestic market by cheap subsidised steel from China and the far east; they will also face a 25% tariff to enter the US, just as their EU competitors will face no barriers at all. The incompetence is staggering.

The sector employs 33,000 people. It is a sector that communities and towns are built around. It is a sector that is highly innovative and has continually bounced back from crisis after crisis—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his speech. We must move on because I need to get as many people in as possible.

Environment Bill

Debate between Barry Gardiner and Rosie Winterton

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 26th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

No. 10 on the speakers’ list is not here, so we will go to Barry Gardiner.

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

I am delighted to support new clauses 12 and 24, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones). It is vital to preserve our most effective carbon sinks. The UK’s peatlands cover only 10% of our land, yet they store about 3 billion tonnes of carbon. Sadly, we have degraded our peatlands to such an extent that only 20% are now in their natural state. Heather and grass burning regulations currently only cover upland peat in areas designated as SSSIs and special areas of conservation, so new clause 24 extends the ban on rotational burning across all upland peat habitats.

Burning vegetation on our most important natural sinks not only hinders our ability to meet our emissions targets, but impedes our biodiversity and water quality ambitions. Currently, only 40% of our peat is covered by the existing regulation. I support new clause 24 to protect the full 355,000 hectares of upland peat in England.

I also support new clause 19, tabled by the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). Land conversion to agriculture for our high-meat, high-dairy diets is a key driver of biodiversity loss. It is responsible for 14% of global emissions and for 35 million tonnes of CO₂ in the UK alone. Tackling deforestation in UK company supply chains is therefore essential, and the new clause would introduce a labelling scheme so that consumers can be assured that the food they are eating is not a driver either of biodiversity decline or the climate emergency.

The right hon. Member also spoke about new clause 12, arguing that we should permit fracking in the UK as an interim fuel as we transition to a fully renewable energy system. The problem is that the interim is too short and the return on investment demanded by the companies takes too long. That would mean that fracking companies left us with stranded assets. Some would say that is their problem, but when the Government have offered the fracking industry the most generous tax reliefs anywhere in the world and 75% capital allowances, it is not their problem, but that of taxpayers. So fracking in the UK should be prohibited and new clause 12 would do that.

The Government have now accepted the need for a statutory target to halt the decline of nature by 2030, and I welcome that, but the Minister must set out further details of the measures she proposes to deliver on the targets and how implementation will be reported to Parliament. The Minister will be aware of the work of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology on biodiversity indicators. Indicators can be used to aid policy decisions, but the difficulty of setting appropriate baselines for reference and the ambiguity of biodiversity targets are compounded by the differing sensitivity of indicators to change over time. Indicators may be about biomass, endangered species or trends of common species. The ability to obfuscate about whether targets have been reached is too great, unless the Minister is specific about the indicators that will be adopted, what the baselines are, how they will be measured and what their implications are for policy development.

POST sets out how it is possible to pursue biodiversity targets that would have a positive outcome in the UK, but would offshore far greater negative biodiversity impacts to other countries. I ask the Minister to respond to the POST note on biodiversity indicators by setting out which DEFRA will use to achieve which ends and which targets it will use. Will she adopt a coherent global perspective to ensure that we achieve a reversal of the loss of biodiversity not just in the UK, but in the overseas territories, for whose biodiversity we are responsible under the convention, and with a globally net positive outcome?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

As there have been some withdrawals and some people have not turned up, I am unusually going to put the time limit up to five minutes.

Trade Bill

Debate between Barry Gardiner and Rosie Winterton

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons
Wednesday 20th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The Trade Bill is a bad Bill. It is bad because it fails to establish a proper framework whereby Parliament can scrutinise, ratify and implement all future international trade treaties; because it creates one of the weakest trade remedy authorities in the world, and because it pretends that it is necessary to roll over our existing agreements with third countries through the EU. So necessary is the measure that the Minister will have great difficulty when summing up in explaining how the Government have managed to roll over the majority of them before the Bill has passed into law. This is legislative prestidigitation of the highest order. The Government say that they need the Bill to do what they proudly boast they have already succeeded in doing without it. The truth is that the Bill is about the Government’s abrogating to themselves all future power in relation to trade agreements, freed from the inconvenient scrutiny of Parliament.

The procedure for ratifying international agreements is set out in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010—CRAGA. It stipulates that any treaty need only be laid before Parliament for 21 sitting days. If there is no vote against it during that period, it passes into law. But the Government decide Parliament’s business and can simply arrange that no vote takes place. When CRAGA was introduced, a huge number of democratic scrutiny processes were in place through the European Union. There was the European Council’s negotiation mandate and formal consultation procedures. The Committee on International Trade—the INTA Committee —scrutinised treaties before passing them to the European Parliament to vote on. Treaties then came to the European Scrutiny Committee in the Commons for further examination before the CRAGA process ratified them. Under the Bill, all that is left is the rubber stamp of CRAGA. All other layers are gone. The Bill should try to replace those layers. It cannot be right that there is no democratic oversight whatsoever of trade agreements.

Members of Parliament may disagree about whether an agreement will benefit jobs or adequately protect standards, but they should have at least the right to debate those matters and hold the Government to account. The Bill denies us that right. This is not Parliament taking back control, but Government snatching it from Parliament. That is why I believe the Bill is dangerous.

Let me remind Conservative Members of what they claimed to be fighting for at the last general election. They said that sovereignty meant not accepting the rulings of supranational courts such as the European Court of Justice. Do they therefore agree with us that the use of investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms in future trade agreements should be ruled out in any form? They give higher rights to foreign investors than to our own domestic companies, allowing them to sue our Government in private courts for policy decisions that have an impact on their potential profits. So much for gaining freedom from a supranational court.

Conservative Members said that Britain had to be free to chart its own future in the world. Do they therefore agree that negative lists of services should be banned? It is impossible to specify in a list a service that has not yet been invented. The negative list process would stop the UK Government making a decision about how such services should be provided in future. So much for making our own way in the world.

Conservative Members said that they would safeguard our domestic environmental protections, food safety regulations and animal welfare laws, but simply keeping our regulations for our farmers here does not protect them in a free trade agreement. Allowing the importation of goods produced elsewhere to lower standards will undermine our producers and lead to a race to the bottom—so much for safeguarding our food and welfare standards.

The Government said they would not sell off the NHS, and of course they cannot. The NHS is not an entity that can be sold, but free trade agreements can contain an innocuous-sounding provision about the restructuring of pharmaceutical pricing models. That is the way to undermine the health service—by downgrading our bulk purchasing power against big pharma companies. So much for the NHS being “safe” in their hands.

Finally, does it follow that if this Bill is enacted, by necessity we will end up with all these measures? No, it does not. It does mean, however, that if they exist in any proposed FDA, Parliament will have no means of stopping that. This debate is about more than trade; it is about the balance of power between Parliament and the Executive. It is about the sovereignty of Parliament—something that every Tory who will vote for this obnoxious Bill swore in their manifesto to defend.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I am afraid we cannot hear Richard Graham at the moment, so I will now call Robert Courts.

Points of Order

Debate between Barry Gardiner and Rosie Winterton

Tuesday 4th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Today the Prime Minister is holding an important strategy meeting about COP26—a meeting that many think should have been held before the former President of the COP was appointed, never mind sacked. Have you received any indication from the Government that a statement will be made in the House about perhaps the most important issue facing our country over the next 12 months, which is the climate conference in Glasgow in December? We want to be absolutely bipartisan and ensure that that conference is a success, but we need it to be discussed and debated in this place. The Government must be open with us about the strategy that they want to adopt, so that we can back them and ensure that we achieve the real objectives of the COP.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard his kind offer and his request for a statement to be made, but I have received no notification about a statement.

Global Britain

Debate between Barry Gardiner and Rosie Winterton

Thursday 30th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bone]

You can’t answer it, can you?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order.

[Barry Gardiner]

We cannot forget that this Government have continued to support the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia with arms sales, despite the humanitarian crisis in Yemen and despite the Court of Appeal ruling that such exports must cease. The Secretary of State had to come before this House to apologise for breaching the Government’s undertakings to the Court of Appeal and to the House of Commons. Perhaps she might be able to tell us the outcome of the Department’s inquiry into how many breaches of those undertakings there were and how they came about. I will happily give way to her if she can. If she cannot, can the Minister of State, Department for International Trade, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns), when he sums up, at least inform the House of when we might expect the outcome of that report?

I am reminded that we are also waiting for further information on the Department’s investigation into bribery and corrupt practices involving British companies overseas, especially those supported by taxpayers’ funds through UK Export Finance. Can we have an update on that investigation, too?

Earlier this week, it was revealed that Airbus has entered a deferred prosecution agreement in relation to allegations of corrupt practices overseas. This is not the global Britain that we should be projecting: a nation willing to sell arms and equipment to countries with a track record of violating international humanitarian law, where they may be used against innocent civilians, deployed in efforts to oppress citizens or exported through corrupt practices.

It is not just in the arena of international trade that the global order is under threat. NATO, too, is coming under increased strain. There are wrangles on costs and burden sharing, and member states are purchasing weapons systems outside the alliance.

Later this year, the UK will host the crucial United Nations framework convention on climate change—COP26—in Glasgow. This is a truly global responsibility but, sadly, it will also be the moment when America finally pulls out of the Paris agreement, in accordance with the notification it gave two years ago. It will also coincide with the result of the US presidential election. Many countries that have been earnestly engaging in the Paris process, seeking to reduce their own emissions, may come to question their engagement if America continues to be absent from the process.

The pattern of global power is shifting dramatically and swiftly. It is turbocharged by big data, the fourth industrial revolution, artificial intelligence, robotics and the internet of things. Above all, geopolitics will be affected by the energy transformation as the world moves towards a net-zero carbon economy.

From coal and whale oil to crude and shale, the geopolitical map has been moulded by the need to control energy supplies. Distribution pinch points such as the Suez canal and the strait of Hormuz have been flash points for conflict, and the projection of global power has relied on the ability to maintain security of energy supply. The inevitability of this shift is not simply due to the rapidly declining cost of renewables, or even the health and climate problems associated with fossil fuels.

Renewables, in many forms, are widely dispersed in most countries, promoting domestic self-sufficiency. They are not stocks that are used and then depleted; they are flows that are constantly recharged and so require less transportation and have no choke points. They lend themselves to decentralisation of production and consumption, and they can more easily be deployed at a local community scale. They also have marginal costs that approach to zero. So just as the geographic concentration of coal, oil and gas moulded our political landscape since the industrial revolution, the dispersed nature of renewable energy will erode those traditional patterns in a new global world. It is not clear that the Government have thought through the geopolitical implications of this energy transformation: which countries are likely to forge ahead and leapfrog the old technology; and which will fail to transform their subsoil assets of oil and gas into surface assets of human social and political capital quickly enough. It is often said that the stone age did not end because of a lack of stone, and nor will the fossil fuel age end because of a lack of oil, gas or coal. It will end with a lot of stranded assets that could pose severe financial risks that a global Britain must guard against.

The Government have sought to congratulate themselves repeatedly on our domestic progress towards net zero, but this has been achieved through the systematic exporting of our carbon emissions and an explicit policy of supporting activities overseas that we no longer support at home. I therefore welcome what the Prime Minister said:

“there’s no point in the UK reducing the amount of coal we burn if we then trundle over to Africa and line our pockets by encouraging African states to use more of it.”

He is right, and that is why we stopped UK Export Finance funding for coal back in 2002 and why we stopped official development assistance finance for coal back in 2012. What I want to hear from the Minister is an update, the logical corollary of what the Prime Minister said, which is that there is no point in the UK reducing the amount of fossil fuels we burn if we then trundle over to Brazil or Africa or India or anywhere and line our pockets by encouraging those countries to use more oil and gas.

UKEF has helped to finance oil and gas projects that, when complete, will emit 69 million tonnes of carbon a year. That is nearly a sixth of the total annual carbon emissions of the UK itself. Global Britain cannot be Janus-faced, with domestic virtue masking the international promotion of the very policies we say we want to prevent, freeing ourselves to embrace a net-zero future while locking other developing countries into fossil fuel dependency.

EU-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement

Debate between Barry Gardiner and Rosie Winterton

Tuesday 26th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

That is a point of debate. I want the debate to move on because a lot of Members wish to speak.

[Barry Gardiner]

The Government have not published any serious analysis as to the potential outcomes of the EU-Japan EPA on the car industry beyond the basic econometric analysis in their impact assessment. It cannot be right to allow the Government to proceed with fast-tracking approval of this trade deal when we have not had answers to the critical questions posed by the hon. Member for Stone and his Committee, based on a proper analysis of what the likely impacts might be.

Draft EU-Canada Trade Agreement Order

Debate between Barry Gardiner and Rosie Winterton

Tuesday 26th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is some pressure on time. The hon. Gentleman has been at it for over 20 minutes and we still do not know where he stands. Is it in order for him to keep the House in such suspense?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

It is quite in order for the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) to be making his opening remarks. I am sure he is not going to be too much longer; there are a lot of people waiting to speak.

[Barry Gardiner]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner]

I did answer that question earlier following an intervention. There are many aspects of this trade agreement that we would welcome and would wish to pursue, but we cannot—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Will the hon. Gentleman face the Chair? We cannot hear otherwise.

[Barry Gardiner]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. There are many aspects of the deal that we would welcome, but there are elements of it that are absolutely unsustainable and constitute red lines. South Africa, India and New Zealand have all stated their opposition to ISDS procedures, and New Zealand has gone so far as to sign side letters with five counter-signatories to the Trans-Pacific Partnership disapplying the ISDS provisions included in that agreement. The current impasse in the renegotiation of the North American free trade agreement hinges on US demands to drop ISDS provisions from the revised agreement, the rationale being that their respective domestic court systems are perfectly capable of adequately settling any disputes. Indeed, if our courts are sufficient for British companies, why should they not be considered so for foreign investors, too? The United Kingdom has long been considered a safe legal system, and a significant proportion of global trade is governed by legal—

[Andrew Percy]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The shadow Secretary of State has now spoken for longer than the Secretary of State. Many Back Benchers are waiting to get in on this important debate. Is he still in order?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

The hon. Member for Brent North is still in order, but I point out that a lot of speakers want to come in. I am sure that he will bring his remarks to an end very shortly.

[Barry Gardiner]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Indeed—I will respect your decision and, in that regard, I hope that nobody else will seek to intervene as I conclude my remarks.

[Owen Smith]

Will my hon. Friend give way? [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. It is important that the hon. Member for Brent North is heard with politeness, because I know that he wants to bring his remarks to an end fairly quickly. I think we should give him the chance to get on and do that.

[Barry Gardiner]

Over the past few years, the Government have entirely failed to explain why British taxpayers should be on the hook for ordinary commercial risks faced by foreign investors. If a company has concerns about the stability of the regulatory environment, it should factor that into its investment decision. Recognising the flaws in the arbitration model, the European Commission and Canada have moved to a courts-based system, but the Secretary of State covered that, so I will not dwell on it.

A Labour Government would not seek ISDS provisions in future trade agreements, but the threat to the Government’s capacity to deliver in the public interest is not confined to the use of ISDS mechanisms. Modern trade agreements such as CETA and the EU-Japan economic partnership have been negotiated using the negative list approach for the scheduling of services liberalisation commitments. Under this approach, all service sectors not explicitly exempted from liberalisation are included. The use of this method marks a significant departure from the use of the positive list in all earlier EU trade agreements, where only those service sectors listed are subject to the rules and disciplines of the agreement. It is considered a particular threat to public services, as it may prove impossible to shield them from liberalisation effectively once they have been committed to an international trade treaty.

This means that any emergent sector in the future will automatically be subject to liberalisation even where there might be a clear need for Government intervention. We cannot predict what those will be prior to their emergence, but that is the very point of using a negative list—to reduce the capacity of the Government to regulate in the future. Collectively, these measures only benefit big businesses and curtail the rights of Governments to act in the best interests of their peoples. That is why there has been so much resistance and uproar from civil society organisations and trade unions alike.

It is ironic that, just as we are told we need to leave the EU to regain control of our laws and how they are interpreted in the courts, Parliament’s ability to legislate in the public interest is being curtailed by negative lists and regulatory chill and by the establishment of a supranational courts system where foreign businesses are given superior rights to our own domestic companies and can tell our Government what they can and cannot do if they are not to sue us for taking sensible public policy decisions to protect the public against new and emerging dangers.

Similar concerns extend to the labour rights provisions of CETA. One study forecast that 10,000 jobs could be lost as a direct consequence of CETA. The threat to European jobs—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I must insist that the hon. Gentleman be heard out. I am sure he will bring his remarks to a close in the next minute.

Exiting the European Union and Global Trade

Debate between Barry Gardiner and Rosie Winterton

Thursday 6th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

No, I am not.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I am sure that Mr Gardiner will take the intervention when he wants to.

[Barry Gardiner]

As I was saying before I was persistently—and, I must say, quite rudely—interrupted, we have set out very clearly that we will try to secure exactly the same benefits that the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union claimed would be procured in the negotiations, but we are not fixated on the structures; we are fixated on the outcomes. But we will be leaving the European Union. The right hon. Gentleman can be assured that we are committed to honouring that manifesto commitment.