Grangemouth Refinery

Debate between Ed Davey and Jim Sheridan

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

I certainly believe that it can have a positive future. We need the investment to go in; the Scottish Government will offer the maximum they are able to, £9 million, as part of regional assistance support if investment does go in. I agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s question. It is incumbent on us to ensure that the plant has a positive future.

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

I also welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. Any investment in our country is welcome, whether it be foreign or otherwise. However, that should not come at the cost of the livelihoods of the workers—many of whom, along with the local community, pay taxes, unlike Mr Ratcliffe. If there is to be state intervention, and I hope there will be, will the Secretary of State make sure that it does not end up on anyone else’s profit sheet? Will he make sure that we speak to the Chinese partner involved, to see what it has to say?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Davey and Jim Sheridan

Thursday 17th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

We are intervening, because the market we inherited from the previous Government was not as competitive as it should have been. Before Labour’s previous energy market reforms, there were three generators and 14 suppliers—17 companies—but after those reforms the number went down to six, so Labour reduced competition. Labour is the party of the big six. This coalition Government have acted to make sure that we have competition to take on the big six, so the hon. Lady should speak to her Front Benchers because Labour is the party of non-competitive energy markets—the party of the big six—whereas our coalition Government are taking on the big six.

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

As part of the competition assessment, the Secretary of State could do worse than visit the workers at Ineos at Grangemouth, who supply the energy needs for the whole of Scotland and, indeed, the north of England, and whose jobs are now under threat from a belligerent employer that has walked away from talks with the trade unions and, more seriously, is now demanding taxpayers’ money in order to invest in the company.

[Mr Davey]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s question. I hope he will be reassured by the fact that I have spoken personally both to key Unite trade union leaders and to Ineos. We persuaded them to go into ACAS talks. I regret that those talks have broken down, but I urge both parties to resume them and try to resolve this situation without industrial dispute. May I take this opportunity to say that, working with the Scottish Government and industry, we have done everything we can to make sure that if there is a dispute, the fuel will flow through Scotland’s economy?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Davey and Jim Sheridan

Thursday 8th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

As my hon. Friend knows—the Chancellor announced this in the autumn statement—we will be publishing a call for evidence on the case for and against a new compensated no-fault dismissal for micros. The Government have an open mind on that, but we are especially keen to ensure that there are no unintended consequences. My hon. Friend will be mindful that the unfair dismissal law was introduced by a previous Conservative Government to improve industrial relations.

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

As part of the sham review of employment legislation, has the Minister had any consultations with the trade unions or others who believe in effective employment legislation? If he has, what was the outcome? If he has not, why not?

[Mr Davey]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I regularly meet Brendan Barber from the TUC. People from the trade union movement widely responded to the “Resolving Workplace Disputes” consultation, and we have looked at those responses.

Convention on Domestic Workers

Debate between Ed Davey and Jim Sheridan

Wednesday 29th June 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Davey]

I will come to the evidence for not applying the provisions in a second, but if I may, I will continue my remarks, because I want to answer the hon. Lady’s questions.

The Act would place a serious regulatory burden on individuals and create a fear of criminal liabilities if things go wrong. That speaks to the point made by the hon. Member for Slough, who says that there are not many prosecutions of small and medium-sized enterprises and that lots of advice is provided before such things happen. We could, of course, contest that, but what she fails to recognise is the fear of prosecutions, so let us look at the implications of that.

There would be new and significant disincentives to employing domestic workers in a private arrangement. Individuals may cease to employ the additional help they need, which could have serious social consequences. Elderly or disabled individuals, for example, could be deterred by the increased burden they would face from employing carers in their homes, potentially forcing them into residential care.

I assume that hon. Members, like me, visit constituents who are unable to come to their advice surgeries. I have two advice surgeries a week, but I also go to the homes of disabled and elderly people who are not able to come to see me. I have gone into many constituents’ homes, and my understanding of the health and safety legislation is that those homes would have to be significantly improved and changed. I do not believe that the people I visit would welcome inspections of their homes, which would be very intrusive.

[Jim Sheridan]

The Minister is a decent man, and I do not believe that he is reading out the script he has been given to scare people, but does he honestly agree with the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) that old women’s houses will be raided to ensure they comply with health and safety provisions? Is he seriously suggesting that will happen?

[Mr Davey]

I am not suggesting that, because health and safety inspectors do not raid people’s homes.

I ask colleagues to reflect carefully on the legal implications of the position they are taking. The convention would undermine the Government’s policy to support independent living, which includes offering personal budgets in the form of direct payments to people receiving state-funded care. In line with Government policy, social care is increasingly being delivered in the recipient’s own home, and more than 150,000 people are currently working as social care personal assistants in private homes. That policy was begun by the previous Government, and we support it.