Barry Gardiner MP: speeches

Speeches

• 23 Apr 2025 · North Sea Oil and Gas Workers: Transitional Support · Hansard source

  More

  I think this is the first time I have had the pleasure of speaking under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond; I am very pleased to have you in the Chair. I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) on securing this important debate. It is said that if you remember the ’60s, you were not really there—but if you were there in the ’80s for the closure of the pits, you will never forget. You will never forget the violence; you will never forget the politicisation of the police; you will never forget the devastation of communities. That was an energy transition—I was not just picking up on the remarks of the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross). This debate takes place at a key point in the transition away from oil and gas production in the North sea. With the Government’s consultation on building the North sea’s energy future under way, and with the clean energy mission driving forward at some pace, securing clean energy generation and the wealth creation and jobs that will go with it is non-negotiable if we are not to repeat the same unjust transition as before. It is a simple truth that the North sea basin is in terminal decline. That is not a political choice; it is a geological reality. For too long, the previous Government buried their head in the sand and watched as jobs supported by the UK’s oil and gas industry more than halved over the past decade. That is why this Government are right to finally draw a line under new licensing and the illusion of endless new oil and gas. The stone age did not come to an end for the lack of stone, and the oil age will not come to an end for the lack of oil. It will be because energy can be produced more cleanly and cheaply by renewable technologies. The demand for hydrocarbons is expected to peak globally in the next five years, but energy companies are still adopting business models focused on growing output volume rather than on maximising shareholder value. Creating the stranded assets of the future is bad management, and failing to build the skills base for tomorrow’s future is bad business planning. The myth that North sea licences are the answer to our energy security is a dangerous one. Hundreds of licences have been issued over the past decades and there has been just 16 days’ worth of gas to show for it. We are lucky to have an abundance of renewable resources in the UK. That is the only route forward to deliver for the workers and communities who are tied to a declining oil and gas industry. The current North sea transition deal is not fit for purpose. It places far too much responsibility on the companies themselves. Those companies are not delivering what is needed: a mere seven out of the 87 North sea oil and gas operators are even considering investment in renewable energy by 2030. We cannot outsource the future of our workers and our energy security to the very companies whose current business model is failing. We need a radical shift. The time for a coherent deal for the North sea is now. It is vital that the Government commit to bringing forward a bold and ambitious plan with the urgency that this time demands. Beyond extraction lies an immense opportunity to build a world-leading offshore wind manufacturing sector here in the UK. Our existing wind farms, many of which are in Scotland, provide a fifth of global capacity. They prove what is possible. But it is a scandal—a scandal that the previous Government allowed—that the average North sea turbine is overwhelmingly built with material from abroad. We are exporting jobs and prosperity. Great British Energy and the National Wealth Fund must be laser-focused on building up a thriving manufacturing sector. A properly resourced clean industry bonus is not just good policy; it has the potential to create 10,000 permanent, direct jobs and 13,000 indirect ones in areas that need it, such as the constituency of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. Can the Minister confirm what conversations he has had with Cabinet colleagues about the clean industry bonus? Is there any scope to boost the funds behind the bonus to truly seize the moment? Our renewable ambition is crippled by outdated ports and dockside facilities. The £1.8 billion in the National Wealth Fund is a good start, but if we are to truly lead in home-grown energy, it is crucial that it be expanded. The funding must be safeguarded and expanded, and the Government should be taking equity stakes in ports as critical national infrastructure. The unjust transition at the refinery in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) and the situation in Port Talbot are warning signs that early Government intervention and investment are paramount if we are to secure the future of our workers. They deserve to experience a smooth transition. Over 90% of the UK’s oil and gas workforce have transferable skills, but they report a lack of support for transitioning into other industries. The energy skills passport is a start, but workers are footing the bill for their own retraining, which often duplicates their existing qualifications. The Government need to commit to streamlining the process. Crucially, the Minister should meet with the Treasury to deliver the £335 million-a-year training fund that unions and climate groups are rightly calling for—a fund that provides paid time off for workers to retrain. We live in a volatile world. The era of relying on global fossil fuel markets is over. True energy and worker security lies in our own abundant renewable resources. The opportunity to create thousands of high-quality jobs in a new green economy is here. It is within our grasp. I urge the Minister to seize it.

• 23 Apr 2025 · North Sea Oil and Gas Workers: Transitional Support · Hansard source

  More

  The trade unions and others have made a case for £335 million a year to be invested in skills and training to ensure that workers are not unpaid on their training days, among other things. What conversations can the Minister have with colleagues to ensure that that happens?

• 3 Apr 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Land-based gambling shops represent a silent crisis up and down this country, targeting some of our most disadvantaged and deprived communities. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Muhammed Butt and Mili Patel, leader and deputy leader of Brent council, on their campaign, now supported by leaders of more than 30 other councils, to reform the Gambling Act 2005 to protect our high streets from rapacious gambling and betting shops? May we have a debate in Government time about the need to change the presumption that exists in the 2005 Act and states that councils to “aim to permit” such licences?

• 3 Apr 2025 · UK-US Trade and Tariffs · Hansard source

  More

  There is a threat, but there is also an opportunity. What measures is my right hon. Friend taking to combat trade leakage and the diversion of goods produced in countries hit by high US tariffs, which may dump their products in the UK, undercutting our domestic producers? What steps is he taking to encourage manufacturers based in those countries and, indeed, in the EU, to relocate to the UK and export from here to the US to take advantage of our lower 10% tariff?

• 27 Mar 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I was proud to be in this House when Tony Blair and Gordon Brown established the Department for International Development, and when they established the Drop the Debt campaign. I was proud when the Leader of the House and I stood for election on a manifesto that committed us to restoring the international aid budget to 0.7% of GNI. May we please have a debate in Government time on how it might be possible to find a lost moral compass?

• 24 Mar 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The work done by the Conservative party on the NPPF was welcome, particularly in respect of its views on incorporating nature into the structure of the build, but it was unsuccessful. The hon. Gentleman will have heard my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister talk about a win-win for nature, so can he give the House an assurance that the Conservatives will back the implementation of measures such as swift bricks? Swifts are cavity-nesting birds that have no other place in this country and are declining at a great rate. Will he back the incorporation of those as a mandatory requirement in new builds?

• 3 Mar 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister deserves plaudits for the skilful way in which he handled his visit to Washington last week, as he does for the resolve that he has shown in standing against Russia’s illegal invasion of the sovereign state of Ukraine. Surely, though, this is a moment to accept that the post-war international settlement has now been fractured and that the necessary rise in defence spending should be achieved by changing the fiscal rules, not by cuts to international aid, which will only see more people slain by famine, drought, disaster and war.

• 13 Feb 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Could we have a debate on Thames Water, which provides water disservices to 20 million people in this country? We now know that the company received from bill payers money that was supposed to be spent on environmental measures such as stopping illegal discharges, and that that money has been used to pay bonuses and dividends. We need to discuss whether the people running Thames Water are fit and proper persons to run a public company.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Ofwat has said that it believes that the right level of debt should be 60%, yet it has taken no action against those companies whose level of debt has risen to as much as 80%. Can the Minister assure us that under the Bill, Ofwat will not only have the power to act when companies’ debt levels are too high, but will use it?

• 11 Feb 2025 · US Steel Import Tariffs · Hansard source

  More

  Under WTO rules, any country can impose tariffs when it believes there is unfair subsidy of the exports presented by the other country, but so far I have not heard America put forward any argument that there is unfair subsidy of our steel industry. What discussions is the Minister having with the WTO about this?

• 10 Feb 2025 · Rosebank and Jackdaw Oilfields · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome what my hon. Friend has said about the importance of the just transition and the need to move gradually to renewables. He quoted from our party’s manifesto that “We will not issue new licences to explore new fields,” but I remind him that there was another part to that paragraph. It says: “because” —there was a reason for it— “they will not take a penny off bills, cannot make us energy secure, and will only accelerate the worsening climate crisis.” Can he confirm that the 3 million oil barrels that would come out of Rosebank would in fact not take a penny off bills, cannot make us energy secure and would only worsen the climate crisis?

• 10 Feb 2025 · Biomass Generation · Hansard source

  More

  Drax has exploited UK taxpayers for far too long. It has lied about meeting sustainability rules, burned 1 million tonnes of wood from primary forests, gagged whistleblowers with non-disclosure agreements, and pretended that it could sequester carbon from replanted forests in time to meet our 2050 targets. Today, the Government have brought that a stop. They have debunked Drax’s lies, cut its subsidy, and set a clear and sensible exit strategy that will maintain security of supply. After 15 years of campaigning, I welcome this breakthrough for honesty and common sense. Will the Minister now look at the role of Ofgem in all of this? Just this weekend, when it was informed of the other break in proper reporting of sustainability, it replied, “That is the same issue as we’ve dealt with before.” What would he say if a policeman said that about a serial murderer?

• 30 Jan 2025 · Avian Influenza · Hansard source

  More

  My recollection from previous bouts of avian influenza is that there were serious problems with delays and with compensation, because farmers who were trying to do a preventive cull of their birds had to wait for an inspection to take place, and if that inspection had not taken place, compensation would not be given. Therefore, some birds died from avian influenza that should have been culled, and some birds did not die but the compensation was not paid. I would be grateful if the Minister updated the House on exactly what the new arrangements for compensation will be.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Today, Lord Ericht has ruled that the consent for the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields was granted unlawfully by the previous Government because they had failed to properly account for the effect on the climate of burning the fossil fuels that would be extracted. Can we have a debate on the future of the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields and on the UK joining the countries that formed the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance?

• 30 Jan 2025 · Women’s Health Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  Forty years ago this month, my wife almost died of an eclamptic seizure because a general practitioner had failed to recognise the symptoms of pre-eclampsia. According to the most recent report on pre-eclampsia, four times as many women are dying of pre-eclampsia today than were dying in 2012. That is an absolute disgrace. If men got pre-eclampsia, they would have solved the problem many, many years ago. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Will the Minister assure me and everyone else that the women’s health strategy will focus on pre-eclampsia, and try to finally find a solution?

• 24 Jan 2025 · Climate and Nature Bill · Hansard source

  More

  From one old fogey to another, I presume. I have never enjoyed a speech by the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) as much as the one he has just delivered; he did not bore the House in any way. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for introducing the Bill; it has had a very long gestation, involving many Members on both sides of the House, but it is good that it has cross-party support. Indeed, the first thing I want to focus on is the importance of cross-party support. These issues had cross-party support in the House for many years following the Climate Change Act 2008, and that continued until about 2015. That was tremendously important in the progress that not only we but the world were able to make. People saw that it was possible for Parliament to come together and do things that were considered radical to tackle climate change. Latterly, unfortunately, that consensus has broken down somewhat, and it is important—it is the duty of all Members of the House—to try to repair that consensus and to build on it. Unless we do, we will face the sort of future that the hon. Lady and the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich outlined. I am conscious that many people want to speak in the debate, so I will pick up quickly on just three issues in the Bill. First, clause 2(2) states: “The strategy must include annual interim targets consistent with the achievement of the objectives”. Those objectives are the climate and nature targets, and it is great that the Bill makes the link between the two; that is fundamentally important. However, I want to counsel against annual targets in this regard. As we know—it is well documented in the OEP report that the hon. Lady referred to, as well as in the Climate Change Committee’s reports—there is natural fluctuation annually in what happens around us. Sometimes that is because of the El Niño effect, and sometimes it is for other reasons—nobody in the House will be more familiar with the El Niño effect on the oceans than the hon. Lady. It is important that we understand that sometimes an annual target, to be consistent with the five-year targets and the overall long-term target, will look like it is going backwards. We need to look at that very carefully in the Bill. Another issue I want to pick up on is clause 3, on the establishment of the climate and nature assembly. In the last Parliament, six Select Committees came together to convene a people’s assembly on the climate. That was a wonderful moment for the House, because instead of our telling the people, “This is what you have to do,” the people were telling us, “This is what we want you to do on our behalf.” It was really important that that took place, and it is great that the hon. Lady has included that measure in the Bill. I gently point out, however, that the climate assembly disagreed with some of the things that the Committee on Climate Change told us were essential to do. The 66% figure in the clause is actually quite a low threshold. Sometimes the report from the climate assembly was clear that people were not prepared to go as far as the Committee on Climate Change and other nature organisations, such as the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, believed was imperative. On who is in charge, there is a failure to connect things up, because the clause says that if something is recommended by 66% of the assembly, it must be included in the strategy. We will need to go through those areas in serious detail. Finally, it is important that the Bill talks about the impact of climate, biodiversity and nature on each other. I pick up on what the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich— the grandfather of the House, as he styled himself—said about Drax. We are going down the wrong road with Drax. I understand the reasons why: Drax power station provides 4% of UK electricity in the power sector. It seen as an important area, so the question is, if we take it away, how will we fill it? But we cannot allow the damage to old growth and to virgin forests that we know is happening in Canada. More than that, as has been said by the noble Lord Birt, who has also seen some of the whistleblowers’ accounts, as I have, those accounts make it clear that the Ofgem investigation was correct in saying that the sustainability of the feedstock had been not only misreported but deliberately misreported. That means that the people concerned in Drax are not fit and proper to run the company, and we should not be paying them—at the moment—£9 billion. We have now to decide whether we will subsidise that even further. The impact on biodiversity is disastrous, and although they say it is renewable, it is not within the timeframe to meet the 2050 climate target. It is salient that the previous Secretary of State, after she ceased to be the Secretary of State, said, “We knew all along that this was not sustainable.” If that is the case, perhaps she should have done something when she was Secretary of State, but it is this Government who must now act to ensure that no further subsidy is paid to Drax.

• 24 Jan 2025 · Climate and Nature Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this Bill forward. Does she recognise that the sustainable farming incentive is moving to rewarding farmers who are further towards the bottom of the scale, rather than at the high end of it as we would wish to see? To reward farmers for rotation of crops, for example, seems to be going back to the 18th century rather than ensuring a high level of stewardship.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Environmental Protection · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 21 Jan 2025 · Environmental Protection · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister has been most generous in giving way to Members. She mentioned that the scheme will apply to plastic and metal drinks containers. What discussions has she had, or what information have her officials gathered, about the potential for manufacturers to switch their containers to glass and the impact that might have on use of resource and climate change?

• 21 Jan 2025 · Environmental Protection · Hansard source

  More

  I commend the previous Government for much of the work they did. I commend the fact that they put in place the Environment Act 2021. I do so because it is really important that we adopt a bipartisan approach to these matters. When we are talking about the environment and climate change, yes in this Chamber we can have some political point scoring occasionally, but it is much more important that we create the bipartisan platform that means successive Governments can build and work from it. I commend the Minister for introducing the measure so quickly. It is long overdue, and it will make an appreciable difference. I would love to know by exactly how many kilograms of residual waste per capita it will reduce our output, but given that each of us is producing 577 kg of residual waste every year, which is over half a tonne—and some of that is toxic waste—it is very important that we get on with this job. Just a month ago we saw a report from the Office for Environmental Protection which showed very clearly that we are not on track to meet the targets set in the Environment Act 2021 by 2042. Although I commend the Government for the action that they are taking now and the urgency with which they have got on with this measure, I want to quote what the report said under the heading “Progress in the reporting period”, which was 2023-24: “The scale and pace of actions does not align with the challenge. While flagship waste management policies have been developed, their introduction has been delayed and they largely focus on end-of-pipe action. There is a lack of action focused on circular economy.” I am delighted that the Minister is introducing this measure and I commend the Government for doing so, but we need even more, and we need it more quickly.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Environmental Protection · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 21 Jan 2025 · Environmental Protection · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and commend the excellent work that she did on this subject as Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee. I think another Select Committee then looked at this subject in 2022, and the Government at that stage said that they would implement a deposit return scheme. Does my hon. Friend accept that over 200,000 people responded to the consultation that was then run, and 84% of respondents said that they agreed with implementing such a scheme?

• 21 Jan 2025 · Environmental Protection · Hansard source

  More

  I applaud any movement in the right direction. The hon. Gentleman compares local authorities, but does he accept that many Labour local authorities have high-rise and tenement buildings, where collection is infinitely more difficult than in leafy suburbs with individual detached houses?

• 21 Jan 2025 · Environmental Protection · Hansard source

  More

  I am slightly puzzled. In the Conservative Government’s response to the previous Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report, they committed to putting these measures in place by 2025. Why have the Conservatives changed their minds so dramatically? Given that it appears that the hon. Gentleman would reject these measures, how does he propose to achieve the target set under section 1 of the Environment Act 2021, which his Government brought forward and for which I commend them, which is supposed to reduce the number of kilograms of residual waste per capita by half, from 577 kg to 287 kg?

• 16 Jan 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The good news is that 185 apartments around Wembley Stadium in my constituency are ready to be occupied. The bad news is that nobody can move into them, because the Building Safety Regulator has sat on its gateway 2 applications for six months and its gateway 3 applications for two months. We have a housing shortage. Can the Leader of the House ensure that we have a debate on the delays and dysfunctionality of the Building Safety Regulator?