Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 18th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

As we move to Third Reading, may I thank all colleagues, Ministers, civil servants and Clerks of the House for their work on this Bill. In particular, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) for leading on it for the Opposition, and for the strength and clarity of the arguments he has put forward, and the diligence of his work to try to improve the Bill at all stages. I also wish to recognise my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) and for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) for their work, and my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) and for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) for their work in the Bill Committee.

We opposed the Bill on Second Reading on the basis that it was not a serious or appropriate way for the Government to address the matter of retained EU law, and nothing that has occurred since has changed that view. This is not and never has been about Brexit. It is about how the law should be changed, and the certainty and clarity the Government need to give when they do that. Legislating for a sunset clause on a huge body of legislation, the scale of which the Government have themselves struggled to identify, has appalled businesses, charities and the public. The fact that we now know on Third Reading that 1,600 additional laws, on top of the ones disclosed in the dashboard, are affected, without the Government being able to tell us what they are, is frankly absurd.

The Government are asking us trust them on a whole range of laws, covering employment rights, consumer protection, environmental standards and more, but how can anyone trust this Government? They are hardly a model of stability. Between First Reading and Third Reading we have had a completely different Prime Minister and a completely different Business Secretary. So who knows who may be in charge by the time it finishes in the other place? We have still not heard a compelling answer as to why the Government cannot address the body of EU retained law on a sector-by-sector basis, putting forward their replacement proposals in the same way as we legislate for everything else. After all, this is the Government’s own approach, which they have taken with the Financial Services and Markets Bill in the area of financial regulation.

This Bill is a charter for uncertainty, confusion and the regression of essential British rights. We cannot and will not stand for that. The Labour Party will therefore vote against the Bill’s Third Reading tonight, in the national interest, and I urge all colleagues to do the same.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

Last Monday the Government presented the next stage of their energy support scheme, but it got a decidedly mixed response. The Federation of Small Businesses calculated that it is worth just 2p per kilowatt hour of electricity to the average small business, which it says is not enough to be material to a business’s decision to close or not, despite that element of the scheme costing £2 billion of taxpayers’ money. The worst of all worlds would be a scheme that costs a large amount of money, while failing to improve the situation facing businesses in any significant way. Will the Secretary of State respond to that criticism and explain the Government’s thinking behind the design of that stage of the scheme?

[Grant Shapps]

The hon. Gentleman will know that UK gas wholesale prices—the forward price—peaked at £600 in August. I looked this morning before coming to the Dispatch Box, and it is currently at 136p per therm, which is a massive reduction. We are very much of the view that we must continue to provide support to business, on top of the £18 billion, which is why the Chancellor has announced up to another £5.5 billion. We also recognise that prices are lower now than they were before the invasion of Ukraine, so we will track the issue carefully and continue to provide that support to business.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

As we heard from colleagues, energy prices are inextricably linked to our country’s competitiveness. Last week, Make UK published a survey of manufacturing businesses. That report was damning, with businesses saying that under the Conservatives they pay a premium for doing business in the UK. They can see that the political instability caused by this Government has driven investment away from Britain, and after three Prime Ministers, four Chancellors and three Business Secretaries last year, it is hard to disagree. Does the Secretary of State accept that the low investment the Conservatives have presided over is at the heart of our economic problems? What is he planning to do this year finally to change that?

[Grant Shapps]

No, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s analysis. He must recognise that in countries such as Germany, for example, where he is right to say that energy costs for business are lower, that cost is reflected in typically higher costs for domestic bills, and he would need to say whether he supports that. In addition, £18 billion is a huge amount of support. Taxpayers are having to pay that money, and it is a question of getting the right balance between the taxpayer and industry. I have already explained the ongoing support we will put in, in addition to the energy-intensive industry consultation that has already gone out, and we will say more about that shortly.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 16th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

Let me start by declaring my interests and my registrations as a trade union member.

This has been a hugely well-supported debate, with no fewer than 38 speeches from the Opposition Back Benches. As many of those speeches identified, there is certainly a pattern with this Government. When people began to protest in large numbers against their policies, they responded by making it harder to protest. When the polls turned and people made it clear they wanted to vote them out of office, they responded by making it harder to vote. Now, when paramedics, nurses, transport workers and many other professions decide, in desperation and as a last resort, to go on strike, rather than listen to them and negotiate, the Government are responding by making it harder to strike. Let me put it in simple terms for Conservative colleagues: “The problem isn’t them—it’s you.” The Conservative party has built this Britain of low pay, low resilience and insecurity, but instead of listening to the voices of the people most affected, Conservative Members have turned up today to try to take away their rights.

The Bill is not so much a proposal as an alibi. It is an attempt to deflect the blame for this country’s problems, particularly the condition of public services, away from the Government and on to the workforce themselves. It is a fairly transparent attempt to pretend that industrial action is the cause, rather than the symptom, of the poor state of public services. I think I speak for every Member on the Opposition Benches when I say that we reject that cynical attempt entirely. When we clapped key workers, we actually meant it. I can only imagine how they will feel watching this debate and having to listen to the people who crashed our economy, adding thousands to mortgage payments, giving them lectures now on pay restraint.

Imagine a police officer who has seen the Conservatives cutting the police so much that they can no longer respond to burglaries, a teacher struggling with class sizes and special educational needs and disabilities referrals, or a nurse on an understaffed ward in a busy NHS hospital this weekend. Imagine those workers hearing this Government having the audacity to talk today about minimum guaranteed levels of service. We have not had a minimum level of service from this Government for 13 long years. After 13 years of a Conservative Government, not a single public service is working better today than it was when the Conservatives came to power.

Even worse is what has happened to growth, productivity and wages in that time. Let us remember that we are not expecting to see UK wages return to 2008 levels until 2027. That is why times are so hard. That is why we are seeing so many people taking strike action—and that is despite the fact that in the UK it is actually quite hard to go on strike. We do not have a legal framework that allows industrial action to happen lightly.

Even so, many of the strikes that we have seen recently could have been avoided. Nurses have never been forced to strike in this country—until now. The offer to halt strike action before Christmas was made. All that was needed was negotiation. We needed the Government to listen, to negotiate, to work through the problems, to compromise and to lead, but that is not how this Government operate. Instead we have this Bill. As we have heard from so many of my hon. Friends today, its proposals are unnecessary, unethical and unworkable. In the brief time that I have, I will address each point in turn.

First, this legislation is unnecessary and is likely to make industrial disputes worse. Minimum service levels are not a recipe for industrial stability. What I find so abhorrent about the Bill is the assumption it makes about working people. We have heard it so many times today: the assumption that striking workers do not care about the people who rely on their services or the patients they are nursing back to health. That is completely wrong. As every one of my hon. Friends has said, in essential sectors we already see minimum service agreements being voluntarily negotiated. We have seen viral videos of workers leaving picket lines to implement those voluntary agreements. Where national agreements are not made, such as with the ambulance service, it is because they are done on a local basis, reflecting local circumstances. What this legislation will do is undermine the good will and good faith that are essential to making minimum service levels work.

We have also heard a repeated claim that the Bill will simply bring us in line with other European countries—remarkably, it seems that the Conservatives have finally found an area in which they see the advantages of common European alignment. But those countries combine their laws with much stronger employment rights, including collective bargaining, and these measures are part of that package. More than 95% of employees in France are covered by collective bargaining agreements. Additionally, it is still a poor argument because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) said, France has lost almost six times as many days to strikes as the UK in recent times. In Spain the figure is more than double, and minimum service levels there have led to protracted legal battles, further prolonging disputes, not solving them. The evidence is compelling, if we look for it, that this approach is flawed.

Secondly, these measures are unethical. The scope of the Bill is huge, affecting as many as 6 million workers. Whether we agree or disagree with the merits of any one particular strike action, the right to strike is a fundamental right that every one of us has, except in the specific circumstances applying to occupations such as the armed forces. So many Conservative speakers have said today that they support that right, as long as the strike in question has no impact. That is meaningless. Conservatives used to worry about the power of the state over the individual, but we have not heard much of that today—and, crucially, the Conservative party has no mandate for this, because the manifesto commitment mentioned only the transport sector. That is likely to be a significant issue in the House of Lords.

Finally, these plans are unworkable. They will start a torrent of legal claims and counter-claims as people understandably resent the direction that the Government have taken and seek to challenge it. They will also prolong disputes by preventing workers from making the point that industrial action is designed to make.

The Business Secretary said something revealing in his opening statement: he said that he hoped he would never have to use these powers. In other words, this is all for show. It is a weak attempt by the Government to say that they are doing something when they are not doing anything to address the underlying causes. All the Members who will vote for the Bill tonight must be praying that its provisions are indeed never activated, because if the Government ever do use it, the net result will be teachers, doctors, nurses, firefighters and more turning up at Conservative Members’ surgeries or standing outside their offices, asking their MPs if they really do want to sack them. Has the Conservative party really thought this through? Is that how we will improve public services, and address the recruitment problems of which we are all aware? The truth is that the Conservatives have gone from clapping workers to sacking workers in just three short Prime Ministers.

These proposals strike me as the last gasps of a Government who are at the end of their tether. This is not a serious proposal to resolve the industrial action that the UK is experiencing. I repeat that it is a sideshow, it will not work, and in fact it is likely to make things even worse. Above all, it completely fails to recognise what every good business knows: that the biggest asset any organisation has is its people, and when those people are driven to extremes and are going on strike in record numbers, we simply have to listen to them. Look at the turnouts in the ballots, and at the strength of the votes that have taken place. We do understand that: there were no nurses’ strikes under the last Labour Government, and there are no rail strikes in Wales under the Welsh Labour Government.

Our plans will address the workforce problems in the NHS with revenue from ending the non-dom rule. Our plans for energy security, industrial strategy and making Brexit work will get the economy growing again, and we will put good jobs and good work at the heart of those plans. The simple truth is this: the Government cannot end these strikes because 13 years of Conservative Government are the cause of these strikes. The sooner they make way for the people who can build the fairer, stronger, more prosperous and more secure country that Britain could be, the better it will be for everyone.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the Business Secretary to his first oral questions. He is the third Business Secretary we have had this year, and I have to say that lack of stability is the No. 1 complaint from businesses, which genuinely cannot keep track of Government policy in any particular area. If they do know the policy, they feel it could change at any moment if the internal politics of the Conservative party shift one way or the other. Does he accept that political instability has very real consequences for economic stability?

[Grant Shapps]

I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman’s welcome, I hope to be in post for a long time, not to disappoint him in any way. His talk about the instability of policy is a bit rich, as many Labour Members sat on the Front Bench under their previous leader, who believed in a whole bunch of different things. Even the shadow Secretary of State for Climate Change and Net Zero, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), once said it is impossible for this country to get to 40% renewable energy—he called it “pie in the sky.” Right now we are producing 43.1% of our energy from renewables. That is from a party that is consistent.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

Respectfully, I think the Business Secretary needs to focus a little bit more on his own side and the humility required to do that.

On a more positive note, this Saturday is small business Saturday. A future Labour Government will tackle the issue of late payments to small and medium-sized enterprises by making audit committees report on public companies’ payment practices. With more than £20 million waiting to be paid at any one time, this is a change that will make a real difference and one that is backed by the Federation of Small Businesses. We could, however, implement it sooner by amending the draft audit reform Bill when it comes forward. Would the Secretary of State support that change?

[Grant Shapps]

I agree that payment for small businesses is very important, particularly when it is not done by larger companies that have the resources. That is one of the reasons why the Government have led the way to make sure that, when small businesses deal with Government, payments are made quickly and efficiently. The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) is looking at a whole range of different things to ensure that we speed up the culture of late payments to small businesses, and he will be saying more about that very shortly.

Electricity and Gas Transmission (Compensation) Bill

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Friday 25th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

I begin by congratulating the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) on his success in the ballot and on bringing his Bill to the House today. He can perhaps now be described as a private Member’s Bill specialist, and the skill in that is to pick issues that allow the House to come to some sort of agreement and for which people want private Members’ Bills. I listened intently to what he had to say and—I will be honest with him—I have some concerns about his Bill, but I can tell him that I have amended my own speech in response to some of his points, so I genuinely listened to the case he put forward.

The right hon. Member gave a detailed account of how these matters have affected his constituents. He was right to say that the proposals are of national significance. That is because the debate comes at a time when this country faces several converging emergencies: the energy bills crisis is impacting deeply on millions of families and businesses across the country, the energy security crisis has been exposed by Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and, of course, on the climate crisis, the UN tells us that we are on course for 2.8° C of catastrophic global warming.

Those crises all call for a sprint to renewable and nuclear energy. That is why the Labour party has set out our plans to make Britain a clean-energy superpower by 2030. I think we all agree that that is also the best way to keep energy bills low, tackle the climate emergency and create good jobs for the future. Achieving that mission is not just about building more kit—more nuclear plants, wind turbines or solar panels—but about establishing storage capacity to manage peaks in energy demand, new ways of balancing the grid and, most of all, very comprehensive improvements to our electricity infrastructure to expand the grid to new sources of energy. That is why the Bill is particularly relevant and important.

My understanding from listening to the right hon. Member is that, fundamentally, he wants to create an independent process whereby compensation can be determined for landowners whose land is required for the transmission of electricity or gas. I assume he intends that compensation to involve increasing the price currently paid for the land above the agricultural value that is commonly applied when such land is acquired through a compulsory purchase order. He made an excellent speech, and the way in which he articulated the specific cases of his constituents was very powerful—particularly when he pointed out that local property searches had not revealed the Hinkley infrastructure, which would impose a considerable burden on people.

I cannot say to the right hon. Member that I am fully convinced that what we need is new legislation to do this better. Expanding the transmission of electricity and gas is vital for the future health of our economy, not just as the bedrock of our clean energy future. In my role I have the privilege of meeting representatives of a range of companies every day, and they all tell me that one thing that holds them back from investing in the UK and growing their business is the time that it takes to secure the necessary expansions of the grid network. A few weeks ago, representatives of a company in Newcastle told me that it had been offered a grid connection by 2040.

[Sir Mike Penning]

It is generous of the shadow Minister to give way again. I have been sitting here quietly listening to the debate, and I share some of his concerns about more regulation delaying the infrastructure projects, but I think that this proposal could actually speed them up, because in many cases it would remove the need for stuff to go to a tribunal. I do not think that the Bill is designed to delay—far from it—although I am sure that if I am speaking out of turn, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) will tell me so. I think that this could be the fairer mechanism to speed these projects up, rather their being subjected to a long tribunal process with the massive delays that all of us, as constituency Members, have experienced.

While I accept the point that the shadow Minister is making about his scepticism—a point from which I started—I fully support the Bill, and I think that, in the end, he will support it as well.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention, because if it were clear that this was the way in which to resolve issues and speed the process up, that, for me, would be the deal-breaker. In the 12 years for which I have been in Parliament— I think the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying this—I have often heard Conservative colleagues express strong opposition to housing developments, energy infrastructure, HS2 and other rail projects. It is important for us to get to the crux of the matter, which is whether this is about resolving things more quickly for people or whether it would delay the system further. If we are to meet the ambitions that Members on both sides of the House have held dear, we will all have to recognise the problems that are involved.

[Dr Fox]

I may be able to help the hon. Gentleman. The purpose of drafting the Bill in this way—without specific legal recommendations, and asking the Government to come up with a solution to the problem—is not to encumber us with further legislation but to open the way for the Government, for example, to introduce, under previous legislation, mechanisms that would enable disputes to be resolved more quickly. Let me say, for the avoidance of doubt, that the way to kill a private Member’s Bill is to include too many specific measures on Second Reading. Requiring the Government to come forward with a solution offers us options that will not necessarily impose on our constituents legislative burdens that are enforceable only through the courts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I did say that the right hon. Member was a private Member’s Bill specialist, and I think he has just given us all a little insight into how to handle these matters. I hope that once more detail is available, we will see an analysis of the way in which any changes in the process would affect our projections in respect of the future financial viability of grid expansion projects and key elements of national infrastructure.

I recognise the arguments advanced by many Members about how various issues involving infrastructure and other such matters have affected them and their constituents, and I hope I have been candid in expressing our concerns about how those might be overcome in future. I close my remarks by addressing some of the broader points this raises. If we are to deliver a clean and secure power system, we need the Government to address some of these issues, as there will clearly be major impediments if they are not addressed. We face considerable issues in providing business with stability and confidence to invest in this country. Members will be aware that we currently have the lowest level of business investment in the G7, so it is essential that we resolve such matters.

We need more clarity, leadership and direction from the Government. We do not need a Prime Minister who has to be dragged to COP27, an Environment Secretary who opposes solar energy or, frankly, a windfall tax that gives enormous, untargeted tax breaks for fossil fuel investment. Taking these matters seriously, and taking seriously the concerns that Members have articulated today, is essential, because achieving this is not just about new electricity or gas generation but about planning reform, new contracts for difference and the regulatory environment. The Bill sheds light on how we can bring local people on that journey.

Making sure these concerns are addressed is essential. Although the right hon. Member for North Somerset has done a tremendous job of moving the Bill’s Second Reading today, this debate is worthy of mainstream parliamentary time and requires a comprehensive approach from the Government, which is currently lacking.

If I could make one plea to the Minister, it would be to ask her to bring back the Energy Bill urgently. We will need some of the tools in that Bill if we are serious about cutting bills, creating jobs, growing our economy and providing energy security. Whether it is these matters about transmission or the other tools we need, we simply do not have the legislative foundations in place to meet the Government’s ambitions or the British people’s expectations.

Newport Wafer Fab

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Monday 21st November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the new Business Secretary to his responsibilities in the House, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) on securing this urgent question and on her tireless advocacy for her constituents on this matter. I welcome the fact that a decision has finally been made on Newport Wafer Fab, but the chaotic process and the lack of strategy from the Government have left workers and businesses facing a great deal of uncertainty that the Government are now honour-bound to rectify.

Nexperia first announced a takeover of Newport Wafer Fab in July last year. It has taken 16 months for the Government to make this decision. In April, the Foreign Affairs Committee was forced to conclude that the review had

“not, in fact, been started.”

Finally, the Government have decided to block the transaction. Meanwhile, jobs have been left hanging in the balance, and the costs of unwinding the deal have risen over that time. We also have to question why we are in this situation in the first place. The south Wales compound semiconductor cluster employs thousands of workers in one of the world’s most strategic sectors, but we are still yet to see the long-awaited semiconductor strategy, which has been 22 months in the making.

Of course, the Government scrapped their entire industrial strategy altogether when the current Prime Minister replaced it with the hastily cooked-up plan for growth. That has already been replaced, because it may have been the sixth plan in 12 years but it was the first to cause a financial crisis. Meanwhile, firm after firm in the semiconductor sector has been sold off to foreign businesses. It genuinely has not been easy even to understand what Government policy in this area is, so may I ask the Secretary of State these questions? First, why has this decision taken so long, when the Government have known everything about the transaction for at least 16 months? Secondly, what is he specifically going to do to secure the future of the jobs in Newport Wafer Fab and ensure we retain this capacity in the UK? Finally, when will the Government come forward with a proper plan for growth, including for key industrial sectors? Decisions such as this, while at times necessary, must form part of a coherent and consistent policy and must be made promptly. All businesses get from this Government is chaos and crisis, and it is not good enough.

[Grant Shapps]

I think that is a rather unfair assessment of what has happened for this reason: the National Security and Investment Act 2021 only came into existence this January, so to say that there have been 16 months during which we have not made any decisions is simply untrue. Secondly, nobody would expect us, particularly with 500 jobs at stake, to rush to a decision over something this important. That is what Labour seems to be suggesting it wants to do.

I want to make sure that jobs are protected. We will be working with Nexperia on this sale to ensure that plans are, I hope, put in place that do that. I have already referred to the wider investment in semiconductors, of which a large proportion is coming to Wales, so the Government already have a strategy in this exact area. It is one of the reasons why we have 100 companies carrying out work in semiconductors.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 25th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:

“this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill because, notwithstanding the need to address the future status and suitability of retained EU law following departure from the European Union, the Bill creates substantial uncertainty for businesses and workers risking business investment into the UK, is a significant threat to core British rights and protections for working people, consumers and the environment as signalled by the wide body of organisations opposed to the Bill, could jeopardise the UK’s need to maintain a level playing field with the Single Market under the terms of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, and contains powers which continue a dangerous trend of growing executive power, undermining democratic scrutiny and accountability.”

I thank the Minister for stepping in to do a speech at the last minute; that is not an easy task.

Before I turn to the detail of the Bill and the reasoned amendment that has been tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends, it is important to revisit the grotesque chaos that we have had over the past few weeks, because it goes to the heart of why the Bill should not become law. The Bill asks the British public to place blind faith in the Government—to trust them with our rights at work, our environmental protections and our legal rights—but why would we trust a Government who have crashed our economy, driven up the cost of borrowing, dashed the hopes of homeowners across the country and hiked up mortgages for the rest? This is the Government who pledged to ban fracking and then voted for it, and who sacked their Chancellor, their Home Secretary and finally, their Prime Minister, only to try—but fail—to bring back the Prime Minister that they sacked before while he is still under investigation by the House. We find ourselves debating a Bill that would transfer vast powers to the Business Secretary, covering every part of national life, yet we do not even know who that Business Secretary will be. It is clear for all to see that where the Conservatives go—like a bull in a china shop—chaos follows. It is just not good enough.

I listened carefully to the Minister’s speech. He cannot assuage the concerns of any of us, on both sides of the House, about the Bill. I do not think he denied that the sunset clause will be a huge source of uncertainty for businesses and workers. Contrary to his claims, rather than taking advantage of the freedoms that Brexit could conceivably grant the UK, that reckless approach threatens many of the core rights and protections that the British people currently enjoy. Far from taking back control, the Bill risks diminishing democratic scrutiny and accountability in key areas of British law.

[Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, unlike the Minister. Does my hon. Friend share my concerns about the lack of a reference to employment rights in the Minister’s speech? Limits on working time, the right to paid holiday, rights for temporary and agency workers and parental leave all derive from EU law. Those fundamental workers’ rights could all disappear under the Bill. Given that the previous Business Secretary, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), stated that holiday pay is not an “absolute…right”, does my hon. Friend agree that we need confirmation that our hard-fought-for employment rights will be protected?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

My hon. Friend is an expert in such matters and she is absolutely right to highlight those concerns. That is what the Bill is about. It is not about Brexit—Brexit has happened; it is a fact. For most people, there is no appetite to revisit those arguments. Although many people have strong views on how it has been done and how the Government have not delivered on the promises that they made—I understand that—the task for us in the House is to get on and make it work. It is therefore important to recognise that the Bill is not about whether people think Brexit was a positive or negative thing. It is about whether we wish to give the Government the power to sweep away key areas of law that are of great importance to all our constituents with no scrutiny, no say and no certainty over their replacements. Put simply, do we wish to bring more Conservative confusion and chaos into the British economy?

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

We now know that Labour is a party of Brexit, no different from the other major party of Brexit, but how on earth do we make something that is unworkable work in the way that the hon. Member describes? Brexit is not a political strategy; it is an ideological venture and mission. He may have given up on getting back into the European Union, but we on the Scottish National party Benches certainly have not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I understand the hon. Member’s position. I simply say that, if we were to lock ourselves into a permanent debate on this matter, it would produce many of the negative consequences that have already come from this process. I appreciate that, from an SNP perspective, it does not see uncertainty as a problem, because its plans would, in many ways, produce even more uncertainty. However, I do not think what he suggests is a serious way forward. I am happy to have that argument because I do not think that it is a practical set of proposals.

The past four weeks in British politics have been nothing short of a disgrace, but the UK’s problems predate the past four weeks. As we heard earlier in Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy questions, at the heart of the poor economic performance over the past 12 years is the fact that our business investment has been too low. Even before the mini-Budget set fire to the British economy, the UK had the lowest rate of business investment in the G7, despite having the lowest headline rate of corporation tax.

Business is crying out for stability, for long-term political commitment and for consistent policy. That is why we on the Opposition Benches have published our industrial strategy and why the chairman of Tesco recently said that only Labour is on the pitch when it comes to growth.

The Conservatives’ imaginary view of business leaders who want deregulated, unpredictable, pure market forces simply does not sit with the established facts. Business likes certainty, but the Bill throws thousands of pieces of legislation into the grinder with no idea which and how many of them will survive. Why would a business have any confidence in our country when it has no idea what the rules will be that govern every part of its operation in 12 months’ time? Once again, this is a matter of trust. After the chaos of the past few weeks, Government Members are foolish to think that any business leader would now trust them with this seismic task.

[John Redwood]

Can the Opposition spokesman name a single regulation or directive of the EU that he thinks should either be repealed or could be improved?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I certainly can. I have always said, for instance, that Solvency II could be improved by having to do the regulation on a basis in this country. If we look at the Government’s approach to that area through the financial services and markets legislation, we see that they are taking exactly what might be termed a more sensible approach, going on a sector-by-sector basis, putting forward positive proposals, rather than following the sunset clause procedure, which is so reckless and uncertain. I say genuinely to the right hon. Gentleman: please have the humility to look at the damage done in the past four weeks, and the role of Government Members in that, and perhaps think, “What if we are wrong, and what are the consequences if we are?”

[Stella Creasy]

Might one of the reasons why businesses are so confused about the impact that the legislation will have be because the Minister is? He tried to claim to the House that all the laws affected are published on the dashboard and will have full transparency. However, 24 hours ago in answer to my written question, the Minister admitted that the dashboard provided an “authoritative, not comprehensive” list. Does my hon. Friend agree that, when businesses and consumers are already struggling with the cost of living crisis, the last thing that we need is to not even know what a piece of legislation is deleting?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The retained EU law dashboard, although useful, is not and never has been a comprehensive list of all the retained law that this Bill affects—[Interruption.] Government Members say that they never said it was. It does not clearly distinguish where retained EU law has been devolved, much to the frustration of the Welsh and Scottish Governments. However, it still lists more than 2,400 sources of law. If the Government want to put a blanket sunset clause on all of this, should they not be able to list exactly what is covered?

The practical case that the Government have put forward for the sunset clause is that they cannot find the time to use primary legislation to amend these laws. Why not? The Government have a majority of 70, at least for the time being. Where the law needs to be changed, what is preventing the Government from doing so? The fear is that what they really want to do is to reduce key regulations entirely, which brings me to my next point—that the Bill poses a threat to core British rights and protections.

There is no question but that the scale of the Bill is large. The policy areas affected cover not only employment law, but environmental protection, consumer protection, agriculture, fisheries, transport, data protection and much, much more. That is why a huge variety of organisations, from the TUC to the RSPB, have signalled their alarm. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will raise their own worries about those issues during the debate.

The situation in relation to employment law is particularly alarming. Most of the UK’s core labour law protections are contained in regulations originally made under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972, rather than in primary legislation. They are not cumbersome red tape; they are things that British workers expect, including the Working Time Regulations 1998, the Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations 1999, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 and the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000. On all of them, the Government are saying, “Trust us.” Why should we?

This is a Government who have not kept their promise of an employment Bill to ensure workers’ rights post Brexit and who do not keep their manifesto promises at all. This is a Government in which we do not know who will be in each job from one week to the next—and I wrote that bit before the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) resigned as Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy a few hours ago. I am afraid that we cannot in good conscience hand the Government powers to arbitrarily decide matters that are of fundamental importance to the lives of working people in this country, not least because we have no idea whether any Ministers will still be in position in 24 hours, let alone 12 months.

Under the terms of the Government’s trade and co-operation agreement, the UK must maintain a level playing field with the single market. Such provisions are important to the UK: they protect against a global race to the bottom in standards and protections. We can only guess how the Government will use these powers, but the powers in the Bill are clearly deregulatory in tone.

This goes to the heart of the Conservative party’s simplistic and inaccurate understanding of regulation. When I ask a business what attracts it to invest in the UK, good regulators are always on the list. Businesses simply do not want the fantasy deregulatory agenda that lives only in the mind of so many Tory MPs. After the events of the past month, in which the financial markets themselves rejected the Conservative party’s allegedly pro-market agenda, I would have hoped for a little more wisdom and insight from the Government, but unfortunately I doubt that that will be forthcoming.

Finally, there is the issue of how Parliament will go about changing the law in future. The Government have already been severely criticised for how little power they have returned to Parliament since we left the European Union, and the Bill continues that approach. The use of negative statutory instruments, so that MPs have to actively object to prevent something from becoming law, is very poor practice indeed. When it comes to future proposals, the use of a sunset clause to cover such a large and complex body of law effectively puts a gun to Parliament’s head. Anyone who wishes to scrutinise or object to any future legislation replacing retained law will be taking a gamble, because unless that legislation is passed in time, the current law in its entirety will simply fall away. That is not conducive to good laws being made.

The obvious question is “Why not proceed on a policy-by-policy basis or, if appropriate, a sector-by-sector basis?” As we have already discovered, the Financial Services and Markets Bill does exactly that. Why not bring forward positive replacement proposals where the law needs to change or where something can be done better?

The fact is that this Government are out of ideas. They are more intent on their own survival than on putting in place the positive changes that we need. At a time when the British people are crying out for stable, competent government by a Government who recognise that economic growth comes from working people and businesses and from stability and certainty, not from the fantasy economics of the Conservative party, the Bill is not just wide of the mark, but wantonly destructive.

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Member is giving a powerful speech. On environmental regulation, does he agree that this could be a very good test of the credibility of the Office for Environmental Protection? If the Government really are assured that there is no environmental risk, they should have no worries at all about referring the Bill to it. The OEP is already deeply worried about the workload in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and about the number of pieces of legislation that should be coming forward but are not.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

The hon. Member makes a very good point. Unfortunately, we know that the Government do not like independent assessment of their choices. They believe that they can simultaneously deliver the promises made on net zero and bring back fracking. Some independent verification would be very welcome indeed.

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

It was actually this Government, through the Environment Act 2021, who set up the Office for Environmental Protection, knowing that it is so important to be seen to be doing the right thing on the environment. I think the hon. Member needs to be careful in what he says, because actually that is the purpose of the body. I know that it will be looking closely at the matter, but that is its role and that is what it was set up for.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I think the hon. Member has agreed with the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), so we have cross-party agreement. The Government will struggle to resist such a powerful alliance.

The Bill is the same sorry tale of uncertainty, dogma and poorly thought-out initiatives designed to appeal to Conservative Members and no one else. At a time when we need solutions for the future, the Government are retreating to the failed ideas of the past. The Bill promises yet more Conservative chaos, driving a bulldozer through our hard-fought rights.

Britain is fed up with this nonsense, frankly. It is time for a fresh start. It is time for serious government. The sooner we get a general election to achieve that, the better it will be for everybody.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I do not accept that construction of what is actually happening. The House will have the ability to focus on issues on which it thinks the Government are going in the wrong direction. Let me pick at random one of the retained EU laws that may be reformed or become redundant:

“a common methodology for the calculation of annual sales of portable batteries and accumulators to end-users”.

Does the hon. Lady really think that deserves primary legislation—a count of batteries? That is what is in the 2,400 statutory instruments on the dashboard, and, as has been pointed out, that is not necessarily the full list.

There are all sorts of minor and unimportant things that need to be dealt with. As for those that are of major significance, it was said clearly at the Dispatch Box that environmental protections would be maintained. That is fundamentally important. It is a commitment from His Majesty’s Government to this House. The Bill will allow those protections to become UK law—which I use as shorthand to cover the three different types of law in the United Kingdom—to ensure that they can be enforced logically and sensibly by our courts in accordance with our legal maxims. That must be a right and certain means of proceeding.

It is interesting that people, having been told this, are still opposing the Bill. I come back to the conclusion that those who are opposing it actually do not like Brexit altogether.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am grateful for the chance to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman. I was going to welcome him to his position, but I did not want to seem ironic. He says that we can take a guarantee from the Dispatch Box. Even the Conservative party’s manifesto commitments no longer hold: we have seen that. How can we take the word of Ministers when even manifesto commitments no longer bind this Government?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman knows that Dispatch Box commitments have a very high standing in our political system. As Leader of the House, I was concerned that we were not using legislative reform orders as comprehensively as the legislation seemed to imply. In fact, the reason for that was a Dispatch Box commitment given by Paul Goggins, in the last Labour Government, during the passage of the Bill that limited the application of LROs to non-controversial issues. Dispatch Box commitments are actually a fundamental part of the way in which our discussion works, as the hon. Gentleman knows only too well.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Government’s economic crisis is now being paid for by every household and business in this country, but the Government’s failure goes well beyond the pantomime of the last few weeks. Twelve years of Conservative Government have given us the lowest rate of business investment in the G7, and that is with the lowest headline rate of corporation tax. So why does the Business Secretary believe the Conservative party has been so consistently unable to provide a platform for the UK’s fantastic businesses to invest in throughout the last 12 years?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

What we have seen is the lowest level of unemployment in this country since 1973. That is real people and real jobs, and employment is the best route out of poverty. We have seen the most enormous advance in clean energy, with more offshore wind than any other country in the world. We have ensured that, during this difficult winter, we were one of the first countries to come forward with a comprehensive package to protect both domestic and non-domestic users to ensure that the economy could thrive. The hon. Gentleman complains that everything that has gone wrong is the fault of the Government. He seems to have forgotten about Ukraine and covid. Perhaps he should read the newspapers occasionally.

[Mr Speaker]

I think you have forgotten that topicals have to be short and sweet.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

That was an interesting answer on the 12 years of failure—it was perhaps an answer to a question, but not the one I asked. Our wonderful businesses want to expand, invest and grow, but they cannot do that with so much uncertainty hanging over the country. The Conservative party cannot be the solution to that instability because it is the cause of it. Will the Business Secretary give us his honest view and tell us whether he still holds the view he has expressed before—that what we should have, following a change of Prime Minister, is a general election?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Pots and kettles, Mr Speaker—that was neither short nor sweet. The greatest uncertainty of all is having socialists in office because the socialists ruin economies wherever they go. They create desolation, chaos and high taxes. As I said before, every socialist Government have left office with higher unemployment, including the short-lived one of 1923.

Energy Prices: Support for Business

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to answer the urgent question, I have to say how disappointed I am that the subject of an urgent question was extensively set out in the media yesterday before being presented to the House. I hope that, as a former Leader of the House who was very supportive of me in criticising Secretaries of State for not coming to the House, the right hon. Member will be especially aware—as I know he is—of Ministers’ duties to explain that important policies are first to be heard in this House.

I understand the importance of the matter and the need for our constituents to have the information as soon as possible and, for that reason, I would have been willing to allow a statement yesterday, if I had been asked. I am deeply concerned that I have to make another statement like this only a few sitting days into this new Administration’s existence. I ask the right hon. Member and all his colleagues to do their utmost to ensure that this is the last time I have to do so. I am not angry; I am so disappointed, and I hope that we will treat the House with the respect that it is due.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy if he will make a statement on Government support for businesses facing rising energy prices.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)]

I am delighted to make a statement, Mr Speaker. As you know, I am a great believer that this House should be informed first. I was unaware of any precedent of a statement being made on a day set aside for taking the Oath, and therefore unaware that your generosity would have allowed such a statement to be made. I point out to the House that, in my membership of the House, a statement has not been made by the Government during the taking of the Oath days set aside, nor was any statement made in 1952 on the last occasion when the Oath was taken. I apologise to you, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

That is why I am saying that I am very grateful, Mr Speaker. I always think it is important that this House gets to know, and your generosity in setting a precedent where statements can be made on the days set aside for taking the Oath is, I think, a good one.

It is vital that businesses have the support that they need to pay their energy bills this winter. His Majesty’s Government are determined to grow the economy. We cannot do that if business becomes insolvent thanks to what is tantamount to blackmail by a malevolent state actor. His Majesty’s Government announced yesterday that they will provide a discount on wholesale gas and electricity prices for all non-domestic customers, whose current gas and electricity prices have been significantly inflated by global energy prices. That includes all UK businesses and covers the voluntary sector, such as charities, and the public sector, such as schools and hospitals. The scheme will apply to fixed contracts that have been agreed on or after 1 April 2022, as well as to deemed variable and flexible tariffs and contracts. It will be applied to energy usage for six months from 1 October until 31 March next year.

As with the energy price guarantee for domestic customers, in order to benefit from the scheme, customers do not need to take action. The discount will automatically be applied to their energy bills from 1 October. In terms of real-world savings, non-domestic users will start to see the benefits of the scheme in their October energy bills, which are typically received in November. The level of price reduction for each business will vary depending on its contract type, the tariff and the volume used.

We will publish a review of the operation of the scheme in three months to inform decisions on future support after March 2023. The review will focus in particular on identifying the most vulnerable non-domestic customers and on how the Government will continue assisting them with energy costs beyond the initial six-month period.

A parallel scheme—based on the same criteria and offering comparable support, but recognising the different market fundamentals—will be established in Northern Ireland. For those who are not connected to the gas or electricity grid, equivalent support will be provided for non-domestic consumers who use heating oil or alternative fuels instead of gas. Further detail on this will be announced shortly.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I welcome the new ministerial team to their posts.

The energy crisis poses a severe challenge to businesses of every size, many of which have been desperate for clarity and reassurance. While the Conservative party spent much of the summer distracted by its own internal drama, the Opposition spent that time arguing that the crisis demands a response commensurate with the scale of the challenge, paid for by a windfall tax on the excess profits that have accrued because of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine.

While I welcome the Government’s damascene conversion to freezing energy prices, we must all acknowledge that for too many companies the news will have come too late to save them. Businesses cannot plan on speculation and briefings. It is regrettable that a Minister who respects the role of Parliament chose to avoid parliamentary scrutiny, instead opting for a sparse press release and a short media interview. That is why the Opposition have tabled this urgent question: to get the much-needed clarity on these plans that businesses desperately need.

May I ask the Secretary of State what, specifically, the review after three months will be looking at and what the criteria will be for determining whether to extend the support? Secondly, how will the taxpayer be protected from energy traders inflating prices, knowing that the Government will be picking up a substantial slice of the costs come what may? Thirdly, what support will the Secretary of State be offering to businesses in the long term to protect themselves from rising energy costs through efficiency measures and the transition to renewable energy?

I also ask the Secretary of State to address the elephant in the room: who is paying for this? The Government say that they cannot cost this package, but it is clearly expensive. This Government say that they can cut taxes, increase spending, increase borrowing and magically pay for it through the higher growth that, after 12 years in office, has completely eluded them. This is fantasy economics. It is a threat to British businesses and to the financial stability of the country. What can the Secretary of State say to reassure the country that these plans are robust, responsible and fair, as well as being sufficient to get us through the crisis and better protect businesses in the long term?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Although we have been away for a few months and had a leadership election, the socialist record does not change. Tax, tax, tax and tax again—it is always the answer to every problem.

Let me come to the specifics of the hon. Gentleman’s question. The three-month review is taking place to work out who will need support, to ensure that support is properly targeted. What is being done at the moment is an immediate response to an extreme crisis, to benefit everybody, but not everybody necessarily needs the same level of support. What we will do in the review is work out who needs the support. If I can give some early indications, it seems to me that places such as care homes are likely to need longer-term support. That will be covered by the review.

The hon. Gentleman raises the important question of how taxpayers will be protected. I have asked the Public Sector Fraud Authority to look at all our plans, to ensure that whatever we are doing and our mechanisms for paying are as robust as they can be against the speed with which we need to act. It is really important to safe- guard taxpayers’ money.

We are doing a number of things to help in the futures market. The Bank of England and the Treasury will provide some underlying capital for the futures market so that there is a more reliable futures price, rather than the one set on very low liquidity at the moment. We will legislate in an expedited fashion to ensure that we protect against anybody who commits fraud against this measure.

The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of transition. Gas is a transition fuel. The Government’s commitment to net zero remains, but we will need gas to heat people’s boilers for the immediate future, and we need to get it as cheaply as we possibly can, using all our domestic resources. Beyond that, there are exciting plans for carbon capture and storage and for hydrogen, which I think present a very attractive future for this country.

The hon. Gentleman asks that the scheme be responsible, robust and fair. It is all those things. It is responsible to protect business; it is robust to ensure that it can be rolled out quickly; and it is fair to our economy as a whole.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State, Jonathan Reynolds.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

In the last 12 years, this country has had a referendum on its membership of the European Union, a referendum on the continued existence of the UK and four general elections, and now we are about to have our fourth Prime Minister. In that time, business investment in the UK has fallen to the lowest level in the G7. Does the Secretary of State accept that one reason for that is the lack of political stability under the Conservative party?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I will take no lessons in political stability from the hon. Gentleman, who stood on a platform to elect a neo-Marxist as Prime Minister of this country. That would have been a catastrophic disaster for business investment and, indeed, for our economic prospects.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

If the right hon. Gentleman wants to be the next Chancellor, he will have to do better than that.

Let us look at an area where he should have taken a lesson from us. Earlier in the year, we said it would be a mistake for this Government to increase national insurance. With inflation and energy bills rising for businesses, we said it was wrong for the Government to add to that burden in a way no other major economy was doing. It seems that Conservative contenders are now lining up to disown the tax rise they voted for just a few months ago. Does he agree with his colleagues that the Government got this badly wrong?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

People will understand that the increase in the national insurance contribution was precisely to pay for the NHS backlog and for ongoing health and social care costs. In that context, it made sense.