Endometriosis Workplace Support

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 9th February 2022 Westminster Hall

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

Before we begin, I remind hon. Members to observe social distancing and wear masks.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of supporting people with endometriosis in the workplace.

What a pleasure it is to have you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Davies.

It would take 20 days, at 24 hours a day, to name every woman in this country who suffers from endometriosis. That is the scale of the problem that we are dealing with. It is bad enough that it takes eight years on average to get a diagnosis, and that there is a lack of settled opinion on the surgery required. It is also bad enough that the blunt truth is that, even in today’s age, the main coverage given to this debilitating disease seems to be when a man stands up and talks about it. I have fantastic support from people such as the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) and other hon. Members, who have supported at every step of the way the debates that I have brought to the House; there is absolute cross-party support for tackling women’s health issues.

Unfortunately, I am often asked, “Why are you doing this, as a man?” I remind people that as Members, we represent everybody in our constituencies, and for most of us, probably over 50% of our constituents are women. It seems bizarre to question why a Member of Parliament would raise issues about the opposite sex; to me, a constituent is a constituent. Endometriosis is such a wide-ranging affliction that affects so many women, and it is so unrecognised.

Today I seek to talk about women’s suffering in the workplace, which mainly comes about through a complete lack of knowledge about this disease. I will start by describing endometriosis. I am grateful to Heather Guidone, board certified patient advocate and surgical programme director at the Centre for Endometriosis Care, for sending me the text entitled “A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma”, which states:

“Endometriosis is a systemic, inflammatory disease characterized by the presence of endometrial-like tissue found outside the uterus. Endometriosis has significantly negative impact on the physical, emotional, reproductive, and sexual health, financial security, relationships, careers and schooling of those affected. Commonly located in the abdominopelvic region, the disease has also been found in virtually every organ system including the lungs. Mistakenly referred to by some as simply ‘painful periods,’ symptoms are not limited to menstruation and often become chronic over time. It is also entirely possible for those who do not menstruate e.g., adolescents, post-hysterectomy, post-menopause to struggle with endometriosis. This extraordinarily complex illness has body-wide impact, with sustained inflammation, angiogenesis, adhesions, fibrosis, scarring, and local and neuronal infiltration leading to a multitude of systemic issues. Chronic pain, anatomic distortion, adhesions, organ dysfunction, non-menstrual abdominal and pelvic pain, infertility and pregnancy loss, painful sex, bowel and bladder pain and dysfunction, lower back and leg pain, severe bloating, crippling fatigue, debilitating period pain among those who menstruate, even lung collapse and much more are hallmark of endometriosis. Despite the preponderance of systemic symptoms and effects, however, many patient complaints are unfortunately trivialized or outright dismissed at the healthcare level. The disease is also rarely present alone and is commonly associated with multiple comorbidities and secondary pain drivers including various gynepathologies; chronic fatigue; coronary heart disease; rheumatoid arthritis; adverse obstetrical outcomes like loss, preterm birth, spontaneous hemoperitoneum in pregnancy, obstetric bleeding, pregnancy-induced hypertension, preeclampsia and more; painful bladder syndrome; and even an increased risk of certain cancers. Often called a ‘disease of theories,’ definitive causes have been under debate for over a century, yet no single theory yet explains endometriosis in all affected. Most likely, a composite of several mechanisms is involved.”

With millions of sufferers and long-standing recognition of the disease, it is shocking that women suffer such enormous discrimination in the workplace for a common disease. To summarise, I will quote from a paper I was sent by Victoria Williams, a researcher at the Open University, from her PhD thesis, “The experience of endometriosis in the workplace and the influence of menstrual policy: leaning to precarious work to manage a ‘precarious condition’”. She says:

“Endometriosis often hinders the ability to work to the same capacity every hour on every day of a traditional working calendar, and as such participants talked of not being able to hold down full time work, leading to multiple part time roles or precarious work situations, drawn by the flexibility they offered. However, the supposed flexibility is often a double bind with lack of stable contracts, loss of state provisioning and the financial impact of having to take time off for surgery (often multiple surgeries). As such, precarious work may be appealing to people with endometriosis because of the promise of flexibility but they may equally feel and be even less protected.”

I want to expand on that by talking about the sufferers of this terrible disease and the effects it has in the workplace.

We have all been ill. Unfortunately, we have all had a rather nasty stomach upset at some point. We may have been at work when we were suddenly taken short and had to nip out to the bathroom. I do not want to get too graphic—we all know what that feels like. I am sure we have all had a very embarrassing incident at some point in our life. Mr Davies, can you imagine experiencing that fear—and, indeed, that incident—every single day in the workplace?

I have been given examples of that particular situation by women who have been at work, in a meeting, when a sudden bowel movement has given them seconds to get out and get to the right place. Yet one person who gave me such an example told me that her employers tutted and said she was unreliable: “She’s always nipping off to the bathroom.” I do not believe that people are mean or bad. I fundamentally believe that most human beings in society want to do the right thing by people, but if people do not know about the situation, ignorance can have some very nasty consequences. We have to start raising a higher level of awareness of this issue.

National Endometriosis Survivors Support has sent me a catalogue of quotations, with more than 60 patients outlining their experiences. I am going to share about 20 of them with hon. Members.

No.1:

“Having endometriosis has made my career a mine field. I cannot progress how I wish to due to time taken off sick. I have been undermined and people have compared my condition to other conditions with complete ignorance:—suggesting that I was exaggerating my symptoms. Working life is not compatible with suffering from endometriosis—it’s too much and no one understands!”

No. 2:

“I was asked what I was going to do to make things better and stop myself being sick. It’s an incurable disease.’

No. 3:

“I’ve almost lost my job due to discrimination because I couldn’t work as fast when I was in crippling pain.”

No. 4:

“Almost lost my job in a major company despite them saying they’d treat endometriosis occasions of absence separately that wasn’t the case. Also wouldn’t let me home when I was covered in blood to change my clothes and made me go purchase new clothes and told me to use work showers.”

No. 5:

“I was in hospital due to my endo a little over a month ago, I couldn’t walk. Had to call in for work, which I rarely do unless I genuinely can’t help it, they asked if I was being admitted because if I wasn’t they wanted me to ‘make up for it’ by working the next day.”

These are real experiences from real people in the workplace. There is lots of evidence out there.

No. 6:

“Due to the fact that I had two laparoscopies, I had a large gap in my employment record. Despite a very good CV, my applications were rejected because employers saw only the employment gap.”

No. 7:

“I haven’t been able to work for 7 years now and it depressing.”

No. 8:

“Was misdiagnosed as IBS for 4 yrs, my boss said I was exaggerating it, refused to let me do flexi time to help. After surgery, I was signed off for an additional week, and when I called to tell her, she swore and slammed the phone down. Ended up severely depressed. I was suicidal. She brushed it off, and kept calling me Menopausal Mandy.”

I have said it before on the Floor of the House and I will say it again: women are dying. They are killing themselves. They are spending day after day in chronic, crippling pain and do not even have the support of a workplace. That level of destruction of women’s lives is killing women, and it has got to stop. We have to get a better understanding of what millions of women are going through in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

We have five speakers and half an hour before the wind-up speeches, so that is about six minutes each. I call Alex Davies-Jones.

--- Later in debate ---

[Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I thank the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) for securing this important debate, and for his work as an advocate on this important issue.

I have previously spoken about the importance of better supporting everyone living with endometriosis. As a member of the Petitions Committee, I was proud to speak up last year when more than 100,000 people signed a petition calling for endometriosis to be prioritised after years of being overlooked. I have said it before, and I must say it again: endometriosis is a mainstream healthcare issue that we cannot afford to sideline. That, of course, means that it is a workplace issue as well. More than 3 million people live with either endometriosis or PCOS in the UK, and we cannot afford to neglect or ignore them.

Before being elected to Parliament, I worked in the NHS as a pharmacist. I met patients living with endometriosis and saw the pain and difficulty that they face in their day-to-day lives—we have heard many examples of that today. They face chronic pain, difficulties with breathing and, in the worst cases, hospitalisation. As we have heard, endometriosis is a disease that we cannot afford to take lightly, which is why it is so important that everyone living with endometriosis is supported in the workplace with the job security, adjustments, flexibility and protection that they rightly deserve. I know that my party has been very clear about how we would help to achieve that.

A Labour Government would proudly stand alongside our trade unions as they push for better workplace practices and take on rogue employers. A Labour Government would fight for flexible working, with the option for workers to work remotely from home. A Labour Government would end the fire-and-rehire con so that insecure and low-paid work is a thing of the past, and they would campaign to ensure that all workers have full employment protection from day one. That would go some way towards giving everyone with endometriosis the workplace security that they rightly deserve.

I would like to touch on the subject of diagnosing endometriosis and treatment, which many Members have spoken about today. Depressingly, it currently takes an average of eight years for somebody to be diagnosed with endometriosis in England. Although the treatment available for endometriosis is incredibly limited, many women battle with the disease for years without a proper diagnosis, often with very limited information provided by their GPs. Therefore, it is essential that, in the meantime, employers better understand the potential impact of endometriosis, even before diagnosis is eventually made. Employees living with endometriosis may need to take sick leave, work remotely or have adjustments made in the workplace before waiting for a diagnosis, and employers have to be able to accommodate that. The situation at present is not sustainable, and more must be done to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of diagnosis and treatment.

We have heard from many hon. Members that the lack of resources dedicated to diagnosis and treatment means that too many people are working with endometriosis in silence, which is completely unacceptable. Only by cutting the waiting time for diagnosis, and by investing in potential future treatments for endometriosis, can we truly change this for so many patients living with the disease. The Government’s overdue women’s health strategy is a perfect opportunity to set out that change, but their vision for the strategy, which was recently published, made no clear promises to alleviate any of the concerns. This is something that I will be watching closely to see how the Government choose to tackle endometriosis. I urge them to take the issue seriously.

Endometriosis in the workplace needs to be at the front and centre of women’s health. It is currently just a footnote, which means that the Government are failing more than 3 million people living with endometriosis. The Government have the opportunity to make a positive change, and I really hope that they do not waste it, because the women’s health strategy will go a very long way in improving the lives of the more than 3 million women who are currently living with endometriosis.

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

Last but not least, I call Jim Shannon. Please try to end at 3.28 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

Now, for the wind-up speeches, I call Marion Fellows. Can hon. Members try to keep it to 10 minutes?

Edmonton EcoPark: Proposed Expansion

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 9th February 2022 Westminster Hall

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie, and to follow the former leaders of the Conservative and Labour parties in talking about incineration and looking to the future. I speak as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on air pollution. Like previous speakers, my focus is on air quality and climate change. We wish to pause the forward direction of incineration, while the Government’s current plan is to double incineration by 2030. The APPG has published research on the impact of ultrafine particulates, which get through filters and are much smaller than the PM2.5 particulates that we normally talk about.

The World Health Organisation has reduced PM2.5 advisory levels from 10 to 5 micrograms per cubic metre, but latest evidence suggests that if 5 micrograms of PM2.5 are broken up into much smaller particulates of less weight, they actually do more damage to the body, because they penetrate immediately into the bloodstream and vital organs, causing permanent chronic damage.

We are concerned about a new incinerator in Edmonton generating carbon, burning 700,000 tonnes of waste. That quantum in an urban environment, where there are often poorer households, will have significant impact on public health at a time when we have not cracked the air quality problem in Britain. We have wood-burning stoves in urban environments, giving rise to 38% of PM2.5, for example, and we still have a problem with diesel cars. If we add this on, it is a real problem.

There are opportunities, as has been pointed out in the case of Edmonton, where the recycling rate is in the region of 30%. My right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) said it would be difficult to get to that, but in Swansea the recycling rate is 62%. If we can double the rate, we can halve the amount we are burning. That is simple mathematics. The Government must ask themselves how to provide the incentive structure to do that. My right hon. Friend said that when he was a councillor, there was an incentive to avoid landfill tax, and therefore the council moved towards burning.

I appreciate that Treasury representatives are not here, but if we had an incineration tax, there would be more focus on recycling. As has been mentioned, new technologies for chemical and mechanical recycling are available. The risk of this venture is that we will end up with excess capacity, and instead of an incentive for more recycling, there will be one for more burning. It could import burning and produce more waste, which is clearly not what we want.

Some environmental impacts can be far-reaching. Studies in Holland showed that eggshells had dioxins in them from incinerator waste 10 kilometres away. There are issues with heavy metals in children’s toenails, which can give rise to leukaemia. A lot of this science is emerging and not known. The science that predicates this particular planning agreement is basically older technology. Technology is moving quickly, as are medical knowledge and science. There is a case for a moratorium to pause and think. Indeed, there is a moratorium on incineration in Wales.

A pre-action letter for judicial review was written on 28 January. It points out that some of the claims that have been made do not stand up to scrutiny. In particular, it is claimed that the incinerator would produce only 28,000 tonnes of carbon; however, according to the North London Waste Authority’s own figures, it will produce 683,000 tonnes of carbon for something like 700,000 tonnes of waste. It is claimed that the incinerator will be developed to be carbon capture ready, but it will not. Again, that is in breach of the Government advice on energy national policy statement, EN-3.

What has been happening is clearly not in compliance with what the Departments for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy are saying. The Mayor of London predicts that there will be 950,000 tonnes of excess burning capacity in London if this goes ahead alongside other plans. We need a holistic plan. We may want to substitute some of the dirty incinerators for a cleaner incinerator. However, we need to see that in the round with the best technology available.

On that point, this plan does not include a dedicated pre-sorting device for the extraction of plastics and recyclables that should be used again. Those are resources. We need a broader plan of taxing plastic and having fewer types of plastic, so that it is more cost-effective and profitable to extract, reuse and recycle. We need to use less and we should have a fiscal strategy. We hope that that is the benign future. In this case, however, we are simply locking ourselves into old technologies and old science, even though we know that the precautionary principle would make us think, “Actually, let’s step back and not do this.”

The North London Waste Authority is in breach of the advice from the Climate Change Committee on using the expression “low carbon”; energy from waste is not counted as low carbon. There are questions as to whether changes to the national grid and other changes will be compliant with that.

It has been mentioned that the project will be funded by a new type of green bond. However, when speaking about the future for green bonds, the Chancellor has said that the UK would not embark on a generation of tax, as it was called for many years, for sustainable finances that was not up to at least the standards of the EU. Of course, the EU standards for green bonds exclude energy from waste, and the EU taxes plastic at £650 per tonne as opposed to £200 per tonne.

I think this is a moment to pause. If these green bonds go ahead, they might be the source of the next 50 applications. There will end up being financial risks for the bondholders because, as has been said, there will be excess capacity. We will be in the farcical situation of providing incentives to grow incineration, which, ultimately, will mean more pollution in highly urban areas and will affect all our constituents. I very much welcome this debate and it is a great privilege to be part of it.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change (Greg Hands)]

It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Hosie. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing this important debate.

The Edmonton incinerator was given development consent in February 2017 after the consideration of relevant issues, including potential environmental and health impacts. The Government have no statutory or financial basis for undertaking a cost review of the Edmonton project. That would be a matter for the local auditors, but I have listened carefully to my right hon. Friend and, having heard what he said today, if I were a council tax payer in his constituency, I would be concerned about whether there is value for money in the project. He reports costs increasing from £650 million to £1.2 billion, which is a huge increase. I am not surprised to learn from him that local people are testing whether the North London Waste Authority has the necessary robust practices in place.

Let me lay out the process. All large energy-from-waste plants in England must comply with strict emission limits and cannot operate without a permit issued by the Environment Agency—in this case, the one granted in 2017. The Environment Agency assesses the emissions from new plants as part of its permitting process and consults the UK Health Security Agency on every application it receives. UKHSA’s position relating to incineration is that modern, well run and regulated municipal waste incinerators are not a significant risk to public health. I will come back in a moment to the arguments about weighing them up versus other means of waste disposal and waste avoidance. The concerns raised by my right hon. Friend’s GPs could usefully be directed towards the UK Health Security Agency, if he thinks that there is evidence that their conclusion does not abide with what is going on locally.

[Geraint Davies]

Will the Minister give way?

[Greg Hands]

I want to make some more progress. I am going to describe the policy, and then I will respond to the points raised in the debate and, if I have time, I will take some interventions.

In relation to the Edmonton energy-from-waste plant, the Environment Agency issued a permit for the new plant in 2017. Once the plant becomes operational, the Environment Agency has pledged to perform regular inspections and audits to ensure that the plant is complying with the requirements of its permit.

I will now turn to the debate itself. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green is coming up to 30 years in this House. He has had a wide variety of roles, including six years as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and has always been an extraordinary champion for his part of London. He is a fellow London MP and has been a brilliant representative on a huge number of fronts, not least this issue, working with local campaign groups. He has raised the issue with the Prime Minister, various Secretaries of State and me. He made some very strong points on value for money and the process.

A number of Members made the point about recycling falling short, and I agree with them. I represent two local authorities, and Hammersmith and Fulham has one of the worst recycling rates in the country, so I have every sympathy with my right hon. Friend and every other Member, including the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), when it comes to recycling.

My right hon. Friend said that there was only one bidder. It is not right for me to comment on the operation of the process, but I think he reported that the winner of the bid said that there was “massive oversizing”. I am not at all surprised that local taxpayers would be concerned to discover those reported comments from the chief executive of the bidding company.

The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) also spoke. Waste incineration with energy recovery should not compete with waste prevention, re-use or recycling. We do not see them as being competing technologies. Notwithstanding new technologies, which he and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green raised, the evidence available shows that it remains the case that the carbon impact of most mixed waste streams is lower if sent to energy-from-waste plants than if sent to landfill. Obviously, that is not a comparison with recycling or waste reduction, but in terms of the strict comparison with landfill—I think that the right hon. Gentleman and I agree on this—energy from waste is better than from landfill. I am not suggesting that he was making an alternative point. I think that his point was that recycling is better. We do not disagree with that at all.

The hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) talked about the doubling of incineration. I am afraid that I do not recognise that figure. That is not our understating of what is in the planning pipeline. In line with the commitment in DEFRA’s resources and waste strategy to monitor residual waste capacity, officials are currently assessing planned incinerator capacity against expected future residual waste arisings, so that we can understand what future incineration capacity may be required following the implementation of key commitments in the RWS. There is, therefore, an assessment of our overall waste capacity vis-à-vis the incinerator capacity. That is being carried out by DEFRA, which is the policy lead on the waste element, while I am the policy lead on the energy element.

The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) rightly drew attention to the tragic case of Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah and her mother Rosamund. We London politicians are all keenly aware of the findings in that case and the reverberations that it has had across London and the country for public policy on air quality and air pollution, which has been improving significantly in London since 2010. However, it is still not satisfactory for any of us as Londoners or London MPs. We still have a way to go, and the tragic case of Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah is a stark reminder of the important work that has to be done.

Carbon capture, utilisation and storage at the incinerator is a matter for local decision making, but the Government have very ambitious targets on CCUS, including 6 megatonnes of CO₂ equivalent by 2030, rising to 9 megatonnes by 2035. We have an industrial decarbonisation and hydrogen revenue support scheme to fund our new hydrogen and industrial CCUS business models. The Government take our air quality obligations extremely seriously, and we are already taking significant action to improve air quality. The Government absolutely recognise that there is more to do to protect people and the environment from the effects of air pollution, and that is why we are taking the action set out in our world-leading clean air strategy, which includes proposals to reduce emissions from domestic burning.

[Geraint Davies]

Does the Minister accept that the doubling of incineration that I mentioned is predicated on the 50 consent orders that have been given by BEIS—his Department—for new incinerators? The 2022 standards of technology and health, rather than those of 2017, should surely be applied to the Edmonton EcoPark incinerator, but the main point is that his Department is giving out development consent orders.

[Greg Hands]

The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point, and I will go back and check that. My understanding is that that is not consistent with the consent orders that have been granted, but I will write to him on the detail as to whether we have the same set of figures and whether we are arguing at cross-purposes. I am very happy to write to him and give him some more detail.

Our clean air strategy includes proposals to reduce emissions from domestic burning, industry and farming, alongside stronger powers and an improved framework for local government to tackle more localised issues. The legacy of our reliance on landfill is responsible for around 75% of the carbon emissions from the waste sector, so it is not simply a matter of switching back to landfilling any non-recyclable waste. That is why we have been clear in the resources and waste strategy that we wish to reduce the level of municipal waste sent to landfill to 10% or less by 2035, and why we are actively exploring policy options to work towards eliminating all biodegradable waste to landfill by 2030.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green has raised some serious concerns about the North London Waste Authority, the finances of the incinerator at Edmonton EcoPark, and whether it represents value for money. I have listened very carefully, and I am sure local taxpayers will be very concerned at what he reports to the House. I hope the waste authority responds in full, as I have done, to the points that he has raised today. In the meantime, I commend him for securing this important debate, and I hope I have laid out the Government’s views on the overall national policy behind waste and energy.

Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2022

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Monday 31st January 2022 General Committees

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a great joy to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. I would like to make a couple of quick points on the operational improvements of the trading scheme.

First, I support the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Test and for Rotherham about the carbon border adjustment mechanism or tax, which could be in these changes. The steel produced in Wales, for example, has half the carbon of Chinese steel coming in. Over time, we want to be in a situation where we support jobs rather than export them to China and elsewhere, where dirtier production occurs. China produces some 30% of overall carbon emissions and uses half the world’s coal-fired power stations—we are talking about 1,037, with another 300 on the way. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that.

Secondly, will the Minister comment on why Drax is not included in the emissions trading scheme? Drax burns 7 million tonnes of wood pellets. That wood is grown in America. It is argued that the wood that is cut down is replaced. Even if it is, that in itself is a neutral operation, but then it is burned here, and it is not counted in our carbon emissions. That is amazing, given that it is the biggest emitter of PM10 in Europe. We basically spend £800 million subsidising it, which is £114 a tonne. In burning wood and coal, we burn a carbon store, but in burning wood, we also destroy a way of absorbing CO₂ and producing oxygen.

Thirdly, on airlines and aircraft, I am aware that British Airways is buying up Welsh farms in order to get the carbon offset to fly more planes. Some of those farms are sheep farms, so we will end up flying in Australian sheep and lamb, having basically allowed BA to use this scheme to create more carbon emissions through their planes.

Finally, will the Minister comment on the Government’s plan to double incineration by 2030? What impact will that have, and how will it be factored into the scheme, if at all?

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

I will certainly look into that in conjunction with the Minister for Industry; I will make sure that he is aware of the issue that the hon. Lady raises. As she rightly pointed out in her speech, allowances were allocated freely in 2021. The 2022 free allocation amounted to 42 million allowances, as it did the year before, and will be issued by 28 February 2022, in advance of the 2021 compliance deadline of 30 April 2022. There is good continuity of approach there.

By putting a price on carbon emissions, the UK ETS incentivises market participants to find the most cost-effective solutions to decarbonising. We understand, of course, that there is a risk of carbon leakage, which we mentioned just a moment ago in relation to the EU’s approach. The UK ETS authority, which is the four Governments in the United Kingdom together, will consult in the coming months on the trajectory of the scheme’s cap, particularly to keep it aligned to our net zero obligation. As part of that consultation, we intend to review our free allocation in the UK ETS, for which we will start a call for evidence in the spring. Energy prices, policy and taxes are all things that we keep under constant review—particularly taxes—so I can assure the hon. Lady that we already have a total review.

Turning to the points made by the hon. Member for Swansea West, in terms of Drax, it is important to recognise that policies are not specific to any particular company. Currently, installations that use only biomass are out of the scope of the ETS, but I can take away the points that he made and follow up on them. He mentioned British Airways flying in Australian sheep; I think he might have meant sheepmeat or lamb meat, rather than the sheep themselves. Having negotiated the Australian trade deal, I am pretty sure that the movement of sheep themselves would not be within scope.

[Geraint Davies]

Just for clarity, the point I was trying to make was simply that British Airways is buying up sheep farms in order to offset the aircraft it uses to send people on holiday or whatever, and—separately from that—that obviously gives rise to less sheep production in Wales. We have an open-door deal with Australia to allow exports of sheep, so we end up displacing consumption of Welsh sheep with consumption of Australian sheep and burning more carbon, which does not seem to be very good, either economically or environmentally.

[Greg Hands]

The hon. Gentleman is tempting me down the path of debating the Australia free trade agreement—

Reducing Costs for Businesses

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister and the Prime Minister claim that there are 400,000 more people in work, but the Office for National Statistics says that there are 506,000 fewer. Why is that? Because the Government do not include the self-employed. What a laugh. They have said that there are 1.1 million vacancies, but that is because 1.4 million people have stayed in the EU. These are empty jobs. There are fewer jobs and fewer people working.

The Government talk about tax. Last year, the Chancellor imposed £40 billion worth of tax, 2.7% of GDP. That was virtually unprecedented: these were 1950s tax levels, and, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, they were almost entirely unrelated to the pandemic.

The reason for this is, of course, low growth. We should be, on trend, at a 40% higher level of earnings, for people’s pockets and for the economy as a whole. Let us compare that with Labour’s record. Labour produced a 40% increase in the size of the economy in the 10 years to 2008, and invested in doubling the size of the education and health systems. The choice for the electorate is clear: high growth and investment in public services, or low growth, high tax and cuts, which is what we are seeing now.

What business wants—my background is in business—is market access, a skilled workforce and cost-controlled stability, but that is being ruined by a botched Brexit. What we want is more engagement with the nearest biggest market, which is the European market. We want customs co-ordination with the EU so that we can get the tariffs off. Of course, if we were in the customs union, we would not have tariffs from the United States, but now we do. Why do we not work together, instead of blowing raspberries? We want support for the high street. I support what my Front-Bench team are putting forward. I also support the idea that local authorities should be empowered to have their own virtual hubs, or virtual marketplaces to compete directly with Amazon, with profits going to subsidise local services.

Let us have a strong economy to pay for a fair society, not a weak and divided economy and a divided society. Labour is backing business. Ultimately, we need a strong economy and Labour will deliver that, as we have in Wales.

Copyright (Rights and Remuneration of Musicians, etc.) Bill

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Friday 3rd December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dean Russell]

Absolutely; my hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I recall that in the early 2000s there were sites such as Napster, which in their very early stages shared content that I am sure the artist did not even know was being shared. Over time, of course, they changed their approaches. That is such an important point. We have to get the right balance between protecting artists 100%, ensuring innovation with regard to platforms and new forms of engaging with media and music, and making sure that we remain competitive in the UK. If we do not do that, we may do a disservice to up-and-coming artists, especially independent ones, over time.

Let me continue my music life story. I am pleased to have the artist Limahl—Members may know him—in my constituency. I was chatting to him just today about this issue. I have just realised that I do not want Members to think I am going to give the “Never Ending Story” of my life—the first of many puns; I apologise. From there, though, my love of music was in discovering it and meeting other people who loved it.

One thing we do not often think about with regard to streaming is the ability it gives us to find like-minded fans—to engage with others, to support others and to find people who are also really into certain bands and musicians, often very niche ones. Those musicians are not always pop or rock-and-roll stars; they may be musicians who work on film soundtracks or spend time as backing singers or backing artists. That shows the breadth of what we talk about when we are discussing streaming and, in terms of copyright and its role in legislation and in Government, the complexity that is involved in what look, on the surface, like very simple changes; actually, when we dig deeper, we realise that they affect people in many ways. I urge the Government to ensure—I have had warm words and clear assurances on this—that they engage now and make sure that we have those conversations with all parties so that we do not just end up representing one group and inadvertently creating issues for many others.

Let me fast-forward—or skip forward, perhaps, in the music terminology—to university. Not many people know this, but I did poetry when I was at university. I even did poetry on stage, which is probably what led me a few years later to publish some children’s books. I was fortunate to meet some fantastic, like-minded people who were setting up a radio station at my university, De Montfort University in Leicester. We set up—I say “we”, but they did most of the work; my friends set up a radio station called DemonFM. This was about 25 years ago. These incredible people, including a guy called Chris North, one of my friends, were instrumental in making that radio station happen. We came together not because we all liked the same music but because we loved music, and we loved making sure that people could hear that music wherever they lived in Leicester, within the available FM range. For me, that meant tapping into a group who were not just passionate about music, but actually doing something about it; one of the important themes of our discussion is making sure that we do not inadvertently limit people’s ability to access music, whether that is via streaming or through radio and other routes. During that time, I met some incredibly inspirational people, some of whom went on to work in the industry or in radio.

[Geraint Davies]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I ask your guidance on whether this is in order. It seems to be an interesting story about the hon. Gentleman’s life, but it is not really relevant to the Bill, is it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Mr Deputy Speaker, being from the land of song, as I am, I am sure that you would have enjoyed the reception last night that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) hosted with musicians. We heard the beautiful voice of Sarah Angel and many up-and-coming and existing artists and musicians were there. Being from Swansea, I know many up-and-coming artists there too. The important point that is coming across is that although some of them have been successful in the past, they look to the future with fear.

The up-and-coming ones are saying, “Hold on, if I get 1 million streams, I’ll get £100—but what about the cost of my travel, the studio or having lunch? Maybe there’ll be musicians with me, or maybe I’ll co-produce or co-write a song, so I’ll get just half that, but I still have to pay those costs. It doesn’t work.” We have just gone through an appalling pandemic, so people in the music industry who are atomised freelancers and self-employed have not been able to enjoy the fruits of live gigs. Instead, they have depended on the meagre crumbs off the table of the industry to survive with great difficulty.

We have heard about Spotify and other platforms such as Apple, Amazon and Google, and how marvellous it is that we can carry the world’s music in our pockets. That is true, but most people probably consume the equivalent of only 12 albums a year on their Spotify account and just play their favourite music again and again. If those had been 12 CD sales instead, the artists would have got much more. We are in a situation where, although we have great scope for choice, that choice is not exercised. It is important that artists get their fair share to nourish them for the future.

[Mike Wood]

I know that the hon. Gentleman will have read the IPO’s report, so he will have seen the chart showing that at the end of 2015, about 16,000 artists made up 90% of Spotify’s streams. By the second quarter of last year, that number had gone up to 43,000, so the market is much more fragmented. That extra choice is great for consumers, but it means that the income is being shared by far more artists than ever before.

[Geraint Davies]

There is more choice; there are more artists. Some eight out of 10 artists earn less than £200 year from streaming, which is not acceptable.

[Mr Whittingdale]

rose—

[Geraint Davies]

I will come to the right hon. Gentleman in a moment, because no doubt he will want to remind us how reasonable it is that the CEO of Universal gets £153 million a year, which is more than the entirety of sales and of streaming for all UK artists and songwriters, including people such as Ed Sheeran. To get that from streaming, as I mentioned, he would have to have 1.5 million million streams. Despite the claims that he does play a musical instrument, I doubt that he could create that. On that point, I give way.

[Mr Whittingdale]

The hon. Gentleman makes a great deal of how little an artist receives for 1 million streams, but in fact, 1 billion streams is not that much. To give an example, Mabel, one of our most successful up-and-coming artists achieved more than 4 billion streams. The income from 1 million streams is equivalent to the income from 1,000 CD sales. CDs do not cost a huge amount, which is why many artists do not receive a great deal of income, because they are not being listened to in the quantity that generates the large incomes that successful artists enjoy.

[Geraint Davies]

The point I was making is that the share that is given to up-and-coming musicians is not enough. The right hon. Gentleman may claim that 1 million streams is not very much, but I would very much enjoy a small fraction of that for this speech anywhere it was shown. It is a lot for a musician to break through that million mark. I appreciate that, in the global marketplace, there are stars who break through into the billions, but that is not the point. The point is that we in Britain should be nurturing our young people to come forward as composers, artists, performers and song writers. If they are going to have the facility to invest in their own skills, equipment and song writing, and if we are to have a situation where we have a broad diversity of people and the future music industry is not completely reliant on people with rich parents, we need to give due reward on streaming to those people who will create the joy and music of the future.

There are new opportunities—TikTok, YouTube and so on—that did not exist in the past for people to express themselves; it is not the case that someone cannot possibly achieve everything without a label and therefore they need this immense amount of money. As was briefly mentioned, the managing director of Universal does not pay British tax, but in addition, the way the finances are managed is such that some artists are paid in dollars and the Exchequer here does not see the fruits of British production, which we should enjoy as well as the artist having their due rewards.

The fact is that music is integral to Britain’s identity here and abroad, whether we go back to the Beatles, the Rolling Stones and Annie Lennox or look at what we have now in Adele, One Direction or whatever. The point has been made already about the hundreds of thousands of people in the industry and its importance for the export and tourism markets. I think we are duty bound to feed the people who are the creative engines of that success, and not to allow it to be sapped away through blood-sucking multinational corporations that hide the tax and keep the revenue and exercise market abuse and dominance in an atomised market of well-meaning people who, in their younger years, often sign contracts without the privilege of a huge legal team behind them to give them cover, so if they are fortunate in being successful, they find they are ripped off by these big labels and then are unable to go back and look at that contract again. Many of those contracts, of course, contain non-disclosure agreements, so we do not really know what is happening.

In a nutshell, we are talking about an industry of a collective of people who provide joy, happiness and exhilaration for the globe as well as Britain, and they have done so particularly during the pandemic, which has been so valuable for people’s mental health. It is important that those artists also have remuneration into the future; they should be able to plan for their retirement. I therefore agree that there should be a cut-off clause for contracts.

The Bill should progress to Committee stage. There has been a lot of debate, and that is a reason for it to be considered in Committee. It is all very well saying the issue should go to the Competition and Markets Authority. It should have gone to that authority; this is clearly an oligopolistic abuse. There is a case, of course, for artists to form themselves into a co-operative situation. It would be good if there were alternative forms of retail, through a sort of “good” music brand, so that we could move forward.

This is a first step that we should not resist because we are bombarded by the vested interests of the massive labels, which make billions of pounds while our people, who we want to nurture, are not getting a fair deal. We do not want these springs of creativity to dry up, so we need to move forward now and, in parallel with that, we need to look at the market abuse. We must continue on an iterative basis to improve the lot of up-and-coming and existing people in this great music industry of ours, hold our head up high and get back to the global No. 1 in the charts.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The Minister has indicated that he would like to make a contribution at this moment in time, but don’t worry—the debate then can continue after the Minister.

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

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Friday 22nd October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Laura Farris]

I do not think that my proposal is at odds with what the hon. Member suggests.

Just briefly, because I am coming to the end—[Hon. Members: “No.”] I would like to focus the remainder of my remarks on the detailed work that has gone into clause 1 and the extended duty to consult, which is proposed to go into the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act as new section 187A. One of the things I think is most surprising about this, despite the fact that it is obviously very persuasive at first blush, is that it immediately takes the trade union, the employee and the employer into their very first meeting talking about fire and rehire. When I spoke to my constituents and the Unite representatives who were looking after them, the thing that had been the most stressful was that they had gone into these meetings and found that from the very start, dismissal was already being mentioned as an option. It was, “You will take this pay cut, otherwise we will sack you and get you back.” That seems to exacerbate the problem, rather than improve it.

The law in this area is not working. When I speak to employers about why they have been raising fire and rehire so early, they always cite section 188 consultation obligations, the “in good time” requirement under that, and the genuine fear that they will be hit with a punitive protective award if they have not put all their cards on the table at the start. A much more sensible route would be to take the heat out of these negotiations and make fire and rehire a last resort that only comes in when all other options have been explored.

That is why we should have specific language in a code of practice. It could say something like, “An employer who begins a section 188 consultation only after it has attempted to negotiate a change in terms and conditions consensually will be regarded as beginning that consultation in good time.” Alternatively, it could say, “Where an employer is attempting to negotiate new terms and conditions before any fire and rehire process, that amounts to special circumstances that rendered it reasonably practicable not to comply with section 188.”

[Geraint Davies]

The hon. Member is making some very interesting points. Given that she agrees with the spirit of the Bill, does she agree that fire and rehire should be a last resort? She is looking at this matter in detail. Does she agree that it would be better looked at in Committee? We appreciate that this area is complicated and she is a great expert in it, but would it not be better for her to be forensically evaluating this Bill with good time with my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) and others in Committee?

[Laura Farris]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I know that the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) wanted to intervene.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I defer to my hon. Friend, who knows far more about this issue than I ever would. The principle behind our discussion is making sure that, where the question is a business’s survival, it can get through a very difficult time. There is no doubt that last year many businesses and many sectors were in a situation where there were question marks about their very existence, so in those times they must have the opportunity to sit down with their workforce and restructure, where that is the only way forward.

[Geraint Davies]

The hon. Gentleman professes to speak for business. My background is in business. I mentioned earlier that the productivity rate in Germany had been twice that of here because employers are required not to fire and rehire people easily, so they train people. Does he also know that the Government-commissioned research by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy shows that, in terms of productivity, the return to training in Britain is about 24% compared with only 6% in Germany? In other words, they have done much more training but our returns are much higher. Does he not agree that this sort of Bill, which puts pressure on employers to train and tool up their workers instead of just firing them when times are tough, is very important for the economy? Will he not join hands with us and take this forward to Committee?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I think that there are two separate things entirely. Who would not agree with skilling up our workforce? Of course we need to skill up our workforce and good employers will do that to enhance productivity, particularly if we move to a higher-wage, higher-skilled economy. It is absolutely right that we should do that. However, the key question on whether the Bill should go forward to Committee is: is the Bill in any shape or form amendable so that it can do what the hon. Gentleman wants? [Interruption.] I accept that Opposition Members may feel that it is, but there are cogent arguments from Government Members that it is not and that there are better ways to do this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

That is an interesting point. Unfortunately, I am not a member of the Government. The hon. Gentleman probably wants to direct that question to those on the Front Bench. I am familiar with Matthew Taylor, who, apparently, is back in the news this week with a different hat on telling the Government what they should or should not do, and I am not sure whether I agree with him in that particular case.

The hon. Member for Brent North also said that the Bill was about better regulation, and that perhaps gets to the nub of the difference of approach between those on the Labour Benches and those on the Government side of the House. Our approach is not about making better regulation, but about making better business. We understand that in doing that, Government and others can take a variety of tactics and approaches to achieve a shared objective.

Let me point Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, because I want to refer to a couple of pertinent examples from last year. This debate largely relates to an exceptional time and an exceptional practice, both of which remain exceptionally rare. For those who have quoted many statistics, let me just add a comment from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. It said that the

“use of ‘fire and rehire’ remains low”

despite the “upheaval of Covid.” It was covid that created those exceptional issues for people. The part that was exceptional and that differentiated companies’ response from the one during a different time of distress, the 2007-08 financial crisis, was that the Government themselves had stopped commerce. This was not just a matter of overcoming financial considerations—the shortage of access to capital to support a business or a downturn in demand in the economy—but a direct intervention of the state, both in this country and in Europe and across the world, which said, “No, you cannot do business”. When we frame legislation, it is important to understand that, if the context for that legislation is primarily driven by such an exceptional event, we are wise to be very cautious indeed about what we put on the statute book for fear that it will have uses in less exceptional times that perhaps we cannot foresee today. That is one of the primary reasons why I will not be supporting the Bill in a vote later today.

Let me reflect on what was on the minds of companies at that time. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) talked a little bit about his broad experience, but I want to talk specifically about what was going on this time last year. Before coming to Parliament, my career was substantially in venture businesses. The businesses to which I still have relations would be covered by the provisions of this Bill. They are largely in the categories of businesses larger than microbusinesses, but they are all businesses for which the availability of cash and the support of capital, both shareholder capital and of loans, are always treated very seriously and quite tightly to achieve growth.

Growth is those companies’ main objective. They do not have a cushion of resources to fall back on, so when the exceptional events of covid and the closedown of the economy occurred, the amount of pressure on their boards and senior executives was beyond exceptional. There was the responsibility to understand where on earth money was going to come from to support ongoing operations. There was their duty of responsibility to make sure that they were not trading fraudulently because of insolvency concerns about the business. There was a desperate search for loans, and an approach to shareholders to gain additional liquidity through additional investment. Many senior executives voluntarily cut—and in at least one instance eliminated—their pay during that period. There was a tremendous focus on employees, and primarily on employee safety.

Let us all remember that the experience of covid was not a shared common experience for everyone in the country. There are those of us in the country, such as Members of Parliament, who were facilitated to continue to take 100% of our pay, to have 100% certainty of employment, and to have the opportunity to work from the safety of our own home, but there were many others who were facing: cuts in their pay, a 100% certainty of the loss of their business and the requirement that, if they wanted to stay in employment, they had to go to work. For any Member to say that senior executives and company boards were not intently focused on ensuring the safety and security of their employees does a gross disservice to what companies were going through.

Boards and senior executives were substantially challenged to make changes. In the process of looking at all the alternatives that could maintain the survival of the company, they would have due regard to the law at the time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury stated, one of the issues with the existing legislation is that companies will defer putting all their cards on the table, including the option of fire and rehire if that is one of their considerations. Perhaps we can make some change in that regard that would be helpful for companies and employees.

Companies would also have due regard to maintaining the solvency of their business. To do that, consideration has to be given to what a company will do to manage its costs in the year ahead. If it is looking to access capital, loans or additional equity, questions will be asked by the banks, creditors and shareholders about what it is doing to manage their future costs. It would be a deterrent to gaining the investment and support needed to maintain the business if it was unable to outline what angles and opportunities it was investigating to reduce costs.

For many of the executives in business with which I have worked, consideration of employees is front and centre in their mind. It is exceptionally difficult for them to balance in their own heads the idea that, “I know I need this additional capital,” with, “I want to make sure I can protect the employees and the skills that I have within my workforce.” In my experience, most people involved in business who are entrusted with authority would undertake measures covered by the Bill only as a last resort, if ever.

[Geraint Davies]

The problem is that the hon. Gentleman is conflating the extraordinary situation of the pandemic, when the Government, to their credit, intervened with furlough, loans and other measures, with a normal situation when a business needs to adjust to economic pressure. That is what we are talking about today—a Bill that, to a certain extent, limits fire and rehire so that it is not the first but the last resort. I feel that he should support it.

[Richard Fuller]

I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, but I do not think the facts of history indicate that what he suggests is the right approach. The truth is that throughout the period of the last Labour Government it was not seen fit to bring forward such legislation. As I mentioned earlier, there were no calls for it when we went through a severe financial crisis, although there was widespread fire and rehire. It is precisely because there was an exceptional event last year that I am conflating that with this legislation. In my view, the Bill has been stimulated by that experience but will sit on the statute book for the future of more regular business, though I am not sure what that will be.

Furthermore, there is a little confusion about the intent of the Bill, which perhaps the hon. Member for Brent North can help to clarify now he is back in his place. Many of us have seen Labour MPs—socialists—campaigning to outlaw fire and rehire, and one would anticipate that many of them have turned up today to vote to do that, yet we heard from the Bill’s sponsor that it does not do that. It got so confusing that the shadow Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Bradford East, urged hon. Members to “support fire and rehire”. Between those on the Opposition Benches who say that they want to ban it, the promoter of the Bill who says that his Bill does not ban it, and the shadow Front-Bench spokesman who wants us to do more of it, I wonder whether they know what indeed they are doing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies]

Will the Minister give way?

[Paul Scully]

I will not for a minute, because I want to make some progress.

It is right and proper, however, that we consider the evidence before we act, rather than just jabbing our finger, so that we avoid any course of action that runs the risk of doing more harm than good. I assure the House that the Government are taking the issue seriously, considering the evidence available from different perspectives and then taking appropriate and proportionate action.

It has been an extraordinary and difficult 19 months for all of us. The impact of the covid-19 pandemic on the whole country has been profound. Millions of people were on the precipice of losing their jobs, livelihoods and homes, but the forecast was wrong and the unemployment rate in the UK is at less than 5% and falling. That is 2 million lower than some of the forecasts and it is lower than France, the United States of America, Canada, Italy and Spain. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew), the high levels of youth unemployment in Spain and Ireland compared with the UK show that we are getting things right here.

We are making sure that bouncing back better means growing our economy, creating opportunities and creating jobs. I know how hard it has been in the past couple of years, despite the fact that we are now on our way to recovery, especially for the many businesses that have had to shut their doors and take a significant economic hit to protect the public’s health.

Artificial Intelligence

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 20th October 2021 Westminster Hall

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

Before we begin, I encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering or leaving the room.

Net Zero Strategy and Heat and Buildings Strategy

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s approach. As I said earlier, this strategy is going to need all of us—central Government, our key city and regional Mayors, the devolved Administrations, businesses, local government and others—to work together to get to net zero. I would be delighted to work with the local government sector. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for local government—the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities—takes a keen interest in this agenda. I am sure that we will work together to ensure that local government plays an important and crucial role in getting to net zero by 2050.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister knows that steel made in Wales and the rest of the UK is half as carbon-intensive as undercutting steel from China. Moreover, our carbon footprint, although low on production at 4.8 tonnes per person is a much bigger 8 tonnes on consumption, because we now subcontract a lot of our manufacturing. Will he look carefully at pursuing a carbon border tax, so that we can play on an even playing field, support local jobs in manufacturing and steel, and help to tackle climate change? Will he announce and suggest that at COP26?

[Greg Hands]

The chair designate of COP26 says that carbon border adjustment mechanisms will not be part of the discussions at COP26, but the UK is closely watching that debate. We are looking at the European Union proposals. Of course, we need to ensure that they are World Trade Organisation-compatible and that they do not discriminate against the developing world, particularly much less developed countries. The CBAMs debate is very much alive and we continue to study it very closely indeed.

UK Steel Production: Greensill Capital

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Thursday 25th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I would like to reassure my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was absolutely right to say that we need a huge amount of steel—about 5 million tonnes—over the next decade and that this Government are committed to an ongoing steel industry. As she knows, I have spoken to local management and workforce representatives, and we are doing all we can to look at all options to make sure that this vital piece of infrastructure continues and remains a going concern.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

We know that David Cameron was an adviser to Greensill Capital, with shareholdings of potentially tens of millions of pounds, and that he made private texts and calls on a number of occasions to the Chancellor to help secure funds for Liberty before Greensill, a high-risk company, went bust, putting thousands of jobs at Liberty Steel at risk. What investigation will BEIS carry out? Will the Secretary of State ensure that in future taxpayers’ money is no longer interfered with by David Cameron and former Conservative Ministers, but is instead invested directly to protect our jobs in British steel and other vital industries?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The hon. Gentleman will know that officials often meet with a range of businesses affected by policy changes—that is part of policy development—but it is always done with proper and due consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Obviously, the hon. Gentleman and I will have slightly different views of what the Government are doing. I was surprised to hear him dismiss the £3 billion commitment. I remind him that green homes grants will deliver improvements to more than 650,000 homes, supporting 140,000 jobs in 2020-21. These are significant strides and a huge amount of money has been committed to that programme.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

What steps he has taken to ensure that the indoor air quality of offices, shops, restaurants and bars is adequate to help prevent the spread of covid-19 among workers and customers.

[The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Kwasi Kwarteng)]

The Government have provided clear advice on ventilation in our safer workplaces guide. We are led by the science in that work and, as the scientific and medical advice changes, the guidance will be updated to reflect that.

[Geraint Davies [V]]

The Minister should know that the science now shows that indoor air pollution dramatically increases coronavirus infection and death rates, and that masks inhibit the transmission of the virus. Will he today press to follow France’s lead to make compulsory mask-wearing the law in all indoor environments accessible by the public, and include indoor air pollution in the terms of the Environment Bill in September, in order to save lives and protect our NHS?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

As I said in my earlier answer, we are guided all the time by science and evidence and, as the science and evidence changes, we will calibrate our policy responses to that effect.