UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Economy

  • Anneliese Dodds – 2020 Comments on Stemming Job Losses

    Anneliese Dodds – 2020 Comments on Stemming Job Losses

    Below is the text of the comments made by Anneliese Dodds, the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 8 July 2020.

    The money sunk into the Job Retention Scheme must not have merely served to postpone unemployment.

    The scheme must now live up to its name – supporting employment in industries which are viable in the long term.

    And we need a strategy for the scheme to become more flexible, so it can support those businesses forced to close again because of additional localised lockdowns.

    There is still time to avoid additional floods of redundancy notices.

    As we have seen throughout this crisis, the failure to match soaring rhetoric with meaningful action has consequences for people across the country.

    Despite all its talk, the Government has failed to create a fully functioning ‘test, track and isolate’ system. This has damaged public confidence and in turn harmed consumer demand.

    And despite all its talk, the Government has failed to produce a clear system for local lockdowns. The lack of timely information sharing has led to the imposition of an additional, wide scale lockdown in Leicester.

    I say to the Government, if it does increase taxes during the recovery, and cuts back on the public services we all rely on, this will damage demand and inhibit our recovery.

    Labour is not calling for tax rises – we are calling for growth.

    The Tory manifesto committed to no rises in income tax, National Insurance or VAT and therefore it is for them to set out how any additional spending will be paid for.

    It’s the Chancellor’s job to make sure the economy bounces back from this crisis so there is money in the coffers to protect the public finances.

  • Anneliese Dodds – 2020 Comments on Resolution Foundation Report

    Anneliese Dodds – 2020 Comments on Resolution Foundation Report

    Below is the text of the comments made by Anneliese Dodds, the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 7 July 2020.

    This report indicates the enormous long-term costs of mass unemployment to the UK economy. If the Conservatives are serious about adopting Labour’s calls for a focus on ‘jobs, jobs, jobs’, they urgently need to change tack.

    The Government must abandon their ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to withdrawing the Job Retention and Self-Employment schemes, and develop support for jobseekers using examples like Labour’s Future Jobs Fund.

    They must also increase their ambitions for supporting infrastructure beyond the largely reannounced projects promoted by the Prime Minister last week, which amounted to a tenth of Germany’s package.

  • Gordon Brown – 2007 Mansion House Speech

    Gordon Brown – 2007 Mansion House Speech

    Below is the text of the speech made by Gordon Brown, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 20 June 2007.

    My Lord Mayor, Mr Governor, my Lords, Aldermen, Mr Recorder, Sheriffs, ladies and gentlemen.

    Over the ten years that I have had the privilege of addressing you as Chancellor, I have been able year by year to record how the City of London has risen by your efforts, ingenuity and creativity to become a new world leader.

    Now today over 40 per cent of the world’s foreign equities are traded here, more than New York:

    over 30 per cent of the world’s currencies exchanges take place here, more than New York and Tokyo combined, while New York and Tokyo are reliant mainly on their large American and Asian domestic markets, 80 per cent of our business is international, and in a study last week of the top 50 financial cities, the City of London came first.

    So I congratulate you Lord Mayor and the City of London on these remarkable achievements, an era that history will record as the beginning of a new golden age for the City of London.

    And I believe the lesson we learn from the success of the City has ramifications far beyond the City itself – that we are leading because we are first in putting to work exactly that set of qualities that is needed for global success:

    openness to the world and global reach,

    pioneers of free trade and its leading defenders,

    with a deep and abiding belief in open markets,

    champions of diversity in ownership and talent, and of flexibility and adaptability to change, and

    a basic faith that from wherever it comes and from whatever background, what matters is that the talent, ingenuity and potential of people is harnessed to drive performance.

    And I believe it will be said of this age, the first decades of the 21st century, that out of the greatest restructuring of the global economy, perhaps even greater than the industrial revolution, a new world order was created.

    When my predecessors spoke to this event a century or more ago, the world order of the nineteenth century they described was defined by the balance of military power, and saw European empires dividing the world between them from 1945 to 1990 when my predecessors of the post war years spoke to you. The world order was defined by the high-stake stand-off of the cold war years, these were orders ultimately reflected by political weight and military strength.

    Today with Asia already out-producing Europe, India and China are becoming part of this new order, principally because of their economic strength and potential.

    And while military and political power retain their status, future strength will depend much more on economic strength.

    Indeed success will flow to, and the next stage of globalisation will be driven by those countries:

    which are open and not closed, stable, pro competition and flexible, able to adjust quickly to change, and
    can as a result find – through their social and political cultures – the best means of developing and creating wealth through the scientific, creative, and entrepreneurial talent of their people, not least through being world class in education and skills.

    So why am I more optimistic than ever about the future of our islands, just one per cent of the world’s population, in this new era of globalisation?

    By your efforts Britain is already second to none:

    for our openness, pro Europe, pro free trade,

    a world leader in stability, and we will entrench that stability, by ensuring Britain’s macroeconomic framework remains

    a world benchmark, and

    we are flexible, and in being vigilant against complacency, we must be, as I believe we are ready to become even more flexible.

    So let me say as I begin my new job, I want to continue to work with you in helping you do yours, listening to what you say, always recognising your international success is critical to that of Britain’s overall and considering together the things that we must do – and, just as important, things we should not do – to maintain our competitiveness:

    enhancing a risk based regulatory approach, as we did in resisting pressure for a British Sarbannes-Oxley after Enron and Worldcom, maintaining our competitive tax regime, and having cut our main rate of corporation tax to again the lowest in the G8, today we are publishing the next stage of implementing Sir David Varney’s recommendations for a more risk based approach to the administration of the system, with greater certainty on tax matters when it’s needed most; and ensuring a modern planning system, that balances our economic and environmental needs with a more predictable and accountable decision making process, including that for major infrastructure projects.

    And because I recognise the benefits Crossrail would bring to the City, we are using every effort to find a solution to its affordability. I will ensure this work is stepped up but as you know the only financing solution that will work will require all parties – public and private – contributing significantly.

    But most importantly of all in the new world order, as the City bears witness, Britain’s great natural resource are our people – resourceful, enterprising, innovative – the foundation on which we will compete successfully.

    The financial services sector in Britain and the City of London at the centre of it, is a great example of a highly skilled, high value added, talent driven industry that shows how we can excel in a world of global competition. Britain needs more of the vigour, ingenuity and aspiration that you already demonstrate that is the hallmark of your success.

    We are unquestionably an enormously talented and creative country. Historically, we’ve been one of the most inventive nations in the world. And as the City shows with its high skills, if we are to be what I want Britain to be – the great global success story of this century – our first priority, and this is the theme of my final speech to you as Chancellor, must be to use the talents of every individual in our country far better than we do today by ensuring we become world class in education.

    But if we fail to equip people successfully for the future and then as a result of them being left behind by our competitors, they start to see themselves as the victims not beneficiaries of globalisation, I have no doubt that open markets, free trade and flexibility will be challenged by protectionist pressures.

    Indeed this is what we are already seeing in the USA, parts of Europe and Asia.

    So the choice is for me clear: invest in education, to prevent protectionism.

    It is investment in education that when combined with free trade, open markets and flexibility makes for the virtuous circle of an inclusive globalisation:

    the key to prosperity for all as well as to opportunity for all,

    the key to making globalisation work, and

    to become world class in education is our mission.

    And so I believe it is time for all of us, and particularly businesses who recruit skilled people, to usher in a national debate on how we, Britain, can move to becoming world class in education.

    But for me the necessity for this national debate is fundamental. Because unless we widely engage people in the debate about being world class in education – and show how people themselves must now be involved in an endeavour that is essential to secure our common future prosperity – then that future prosperity is at risk.

    Let me give one example.

    Today there are in Britain 5 million unskilled people. By 2020 we will need only just over half a million. So we must create up to five million new skilled jobs and to fill them we must persuade five million unskilled men and women to gain skills, the biggest transformation in the skills of our economy for more than a century.

    And we will need 50 per cent more people of graduate skills. Yet, while China and India are turning out 4 million graduates a year, we produce just 400,000.

    Quite simply in Britain today there is too much potential untapped, too much talent wasted, too much ability unrealised.

    And so despite all the progress we have made, there is no place in the new Britain we seek for complacency and no room for inadequate skills, low aspirations, a soft approach to discipline or for a culture of the second best.

    Other countries aren’t standing still, rather they are pushing forward the frontiers – showing what a 21st century education system can offer. There are many good examples:

    in Finland every teacher now has a masters degree and many have PhDs,

    in Ireland 55 per cent now go on to higher education and their target is for 90% to stay in education until 18,

    in France every pupil now learns a second language in primary school, and

    in Singapore the consistently high quality of classroom teaching has led them to be world leaders in maths and science.

    The global competition to create highly skilled, value added economies is fierce and can only get fiercer.

    I am passionate about education because I want a Britain where there is no cap on ambition, no ceiling on talent, no limit to where your potential will take you and how far you can rise. A Britain of talent unleashed, driving our economy and future prosperity.

    And because schools are the foundation, we need to ensure all schools are committed to high standards and are at the same time centres of creativity, innovation and enjoyment. Ready to challenge and inspire – fostering scholarship, inquisitiveness and independence of thought, teaching facts and imparting knowledge – of course. But doing far more than that – nourishing all forms of talent – because that is the future of our nation.

    The foundation of our new approach is that for the first time young people in Britain will be offered education to 18 and for the first time also a clear pathway from school to a career: either through college or university and then a profession, or through an apprenticeship and skilled work. Diplomas such as engineering or for others a young apprenticeship with an employer. For those who need more support we will provide pre-apprenticeship courses as a stepping stone to a full apprenticeship of which there will, over time, be 500,000.

    And I believe that taking private and public investments together, advanced industrial countries will have in future aspire to invest not 5-6-7-8 per cent of their national income, on education science and innovation but 10 per cent, one pound in every ten.

    And to mobilise all the energies of our country – the Secretary of State for Education and I propose a National Council for Educational Excellence – bringing together leaders in business, higher education, and the voluntary sector, alongside school heads, teachers and parents, all who can play their part.

    It is good for our country that we have businesses involved in some schools, and I can congratulate companies who are. In future every single secondary school and primary school should have a business partner and I invite you all to participate, every secondary school should have a university or college partner, every school should work directly with the arts and cultural and sporting communities in their area, every school should work with other local schools to raise standards for all.

    I am pleased that Sir Terry Leahy, Sir John Rose, Richard Lambert, Bob Wigley and Damon Buffini have agreed to join the Council.

    The Council will be advised by Sir Michael Barber, Julia Cleverdon, Head of Business in the Community, has agreed to report on how more businesses, small medium and large, can play a bigger part in support of our schools.

    We have asked Steve Smith, Vice-Chancellor of Exeter University to report on what more universities and colleges can do to help our schools.

    We have asked Edward Gould, former chair of the Independent Schools Council and Steve Munday, Principal of Comberton Village College to work jointly to identify how in areas such as sports science and languages private and state funded schools can work together to raise standards to the benefit of all.

    We would like this new Council to promote national debate, that I invite you to be part of, about our ambitions for our education system in the years to 2020: today we invest £5,500 in the education of a pupil in the public sector and £8,000 or more in the private sector, 50 per cent per pupil less, and my aim is, over time, to raise our public investment towards that £8,000 figure.

    First, our future education policy must and will champion aspiration and excellence with a renewed focus on standards and rigour in teaching methods, particularly in literacy and by reviewing fundamentally the teaching of numeracy.

    So my proposal is for a far-reaching new nationwide programme that will empower head teachers to provide individual guidance and support for every child in Britain:

    for each pupil, a personal learning guide or coach to help them make the right curriculum choices and to act as an easy point of contact for parents,

    to back this up, for pupils at risk of falling behind, early intervention and special support to help them catch up. This is already underway with the ‘Every Child a Reader’ programme for literacy, which is now being matched with the ‘Every Child Counts’ initiative for numeracy, alongside one-to one tuition for up to another 600,000 children, for all secondary school pupils, starting with a pilot this year, access to after-school small group tuition in subjects areas they have special interest in,

    for pupils who show a special aptitude or talent, extra support through growing our gifted and talented programme,
    for young people at risk of disillusion or dropping out, a mentor – often from a local business – to help them raise their sights, and

    to ensure that those on low incomes receive the support they need, I would also like to pilot a new learning credit which they, their parents and the school can agree will be spent on extra provision in order to make the most of their potential.

    And because this personalised approach to learning is at the heart of the next stage of education reform, we need a renewed focus on setting by ability in the key subjects essential to our competitiveness like maths, English, science and languages as the norm in all our schools; we need pupils increasingly assessed on these subjects by stage, when they are ready to move to the next level; and we need schools held to account for ensuring that every child makes progress.

    Second, in order to achieve excellence in the classroom, future educational policy must and will champion greater diversity, the best way of both encouraging innovation and meeting the different and individual needs of every child. Already we are close to every school being either a specialist, trust or academy school – like the City of London’s own academy in Bermondsey I recently visited with Lord Adonis, and applaud and like so many is flourishing. And we will now consider reduced cash contributions for universities and colleges to make it easier for them to play a fuller part in the expansion of academies.

    And we should also be willing to consider new proposals for: combined all-through primary and secondary schools, employer-led skills academies to transform the quality of vocational provision, and studio schools that motivate dis-engaged pupils by allowing them to learn the curriculum alongside a chance to work in and run a real business based in the school.

    Third, future education policy must and will champion excellence in teaching. Excellent standards require excellent teachers and hence greater status and respect for the difficult job they do. So we need to give heads the freedom they need to lead schools and respect the professionalism of our teachers – helping them to train and retrain, and become expert tutors and subject specialists. We also need to attract more of the most inspirational graduates from the best universities into our schools. So we will expand our ‘Teach First’ programme for the best graduates and complement it with a new ‘Teach Next’ programme, encouraging men and women of talent to move mid or late career into teaching.

    And fourth, future education policy will champion discipline. I know parents and employers expect us to do more to help schools recognise this vital role in developing children and young people and they are right to do so. I want teachers to be in control in every classroom, so we will work with the profession not just to ensure that teachers can make maximum use of tough new powers, but to emphasise the priority of setting boundaries on what is acceptable and unacceptable, I will ask Ofsted to consider raising the bar on what is satisfactory and unsatisfactory behaviour. And we will take further steps not just to stamp out bullying in and outside the school but give parents rights of appeal.

    And alongside discipline there are broader educational goals that have had too little attention: good behaviour, decent manners, the ability to communicate well and work in a team – these soft skills that help a young person’s character develop, that are critical for their employability, and are the essential complement to the hard skills they gain from higher standards.

    And we’ll do this by encouraging parents to work with schools and organisations in the community that have a reputation for fostering children’s character, like the cadets and skill-force; and by building a new offer of national youth community service for young people.

    I have spoken about education this evening.

    Only with investment in education can open markets, free trade and flexibility succeed.

    And the prize is enormous. If we can show people that by equipping themselves for the future they can be the winners not losers in globalisation, beneficiaries of this era of fast moving change, then people will welcome open, flexible, free trade and pro-competition economies as an emancipating force.

    If we can become the education nation, great days are ahead of us.

    While never the biggest in size, nor the mightiest in military hardware, I believe we are – as the city’s success shows – capable of being one of the greatest success stories in the new global economy.

    Already strong in this young century, but greater days are ahead of us.

    Britain the education nation,

    Britain a world leader for its talents and skills,

    So tonight in celebrating the success of the talents, innovations and achievements of the city let us look forward to working together for even greater success in the future.

  • Anneliese Dodds – 2020 Speech on a Back to Work Budget

    Anneliese Dodds – 2020 Speech on a Back to Work Budget

    Below is the text of the speech made by Anneliese Dodds, the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 3 July 2020.

    Back in March, as lockdown began, hastily written notes were placed in the windows of shops and businesses on high streets across the country.

    They announced an unavoidable shut down with no certainty about how or when they could re-open.

    This is every business’ nightmare, but for three long months, it has been their waking reality.

    Now, for some parts of our economy, the notes are beginning to come down, and the shutters are beginning to come up.

    But for others, the crisis is still not over.

    We are still in the middle of the greatest crisis in a generation one where our government, sadly, has been too slow to act. Too slow to lockdown. Too slow to ramp up testing. And too slow to get PPE to our brilliant frontline workers.

    As lockdown restrictions begin to ease, attention is turning to the economic impact of coronavirus.

    Labour is very clear: the government cannot afford to be too slow.

    Britain needs a Back to Work Budget with a focus on jobs, jobs and jobs again.

    What we are hearing from the government on the economy is worrying.

    Worrying that – yet again – they plan to take a hands-off approach to helping business and people’s livelihoods.

    Worrying that the Chancellor is reported to have said he “shouldn’t be picking winners.”
    As if supporting a local pub or family-run restaurant, that has been boarded up at the direction of government is somehow cheating the natural order of things.

    Worrying that some press reports suggested the Chancellor was considering putting off his Summer Economic Update, in order to wait and see what happens this weekend, when more of the lockdown lifts. Even though many other countries announced weeks ago, their recovery packages, focused on backing the green jobs of the future.

    Waiting to see is not a strategy.

    The OECD’s Global Outlook report published last month, made for sobering reading.
    It suggested that the economic hit on the UK due to the coronavirus would be the worst of all industrialised nations.

    And, that unemployment levels in the UK could be the second worst in the industrialised world.

    Just as the hit to our population’s health from coronavirus threatens to be one of the worst of all industrialised countries, so our economy stands at a crossroads.

    This is not a time to wait and see.

    In Leicester this week we have seen the first major re-imposition of lockdown.

    The government promised these lockdowns would be local.

    But the reality is they are being driven from Whitehall.

    We still do not have a functioning track, trace and isolate system.

    And local authorities are not getting the data they need in the time they need it.

    The experience in recent days and weeks in Leicester is a familiar one in our response to this crisis. Muddled. Confusing. With a refusal to bring in local authorities and too slow – much – much too slow.

    We desperately need and want government to get this right.

    Lives and livelihoods depend upon it.

    Because for as long as there is confusion and delay in the public health response, many people will stay away from our high streets and out of our shops, pubs and restaurants.

    At this time of continued national crisis, Labour is determined to act as a constructive opposition.

    So, in that spirit, I call on the Chancellor to acknowledge the impact of the slow health response on our economy and do something about it.

    Today we call on government, to lay out plans to extend support schemes for businesses and people in areas like Leicester that are forced into local lockdowns.

    These support schemes should serve as economic sandbags, ensuring localised second waves of COVID-19 don’t wash away businesses and jobs in their wake.

    Labour has also repeatedly set out constructive solutions when it comes to test, track and isolate, including changes to sick pay, so people are not having to choose between self-isolating and providing for their families.
    And we have repeatedly called for clear public health messaging – with unambiguous and strongly-enforced guidance.

    These solutions are critical to reducing infection and to building trust and aiding our economic recovery.

    We have also set out the fiscal measures Government should take, to first secure, and then turbocharge our recovery.

    Instead of the limited ‘Summer Economic Update’ promised next week, we need a real Back to Work Budget.

    It must focus on preventing unemployment, supporting the unemployed back into work, and creating the jobs of the future, so that when we emerge from this crisis, Britain is ready to come back even better than before.

    We already know many of the policies which can prevent and combat unemployment, and the long-term costs unemployment incurs.

    And we know that many other countries announced their economic recovery packages not just days, but weeks ago.

    Already we are falling behind others.

    This is no time to wait and see: it’s the time to act in our country’s interest.

    Labour supported the Job Protection Scheme and self-employed schemes – indeed, we called for them.

    We also called for an exit strategy.

    But as with the lifting of lockdown, what we have now is an exit without a strategy.

    First, government must abandon its one-size-fits-all wind-down of the Job Protection and self-employed schemes.

    We need a targeted strategy that acknowledges that workers in struggling sectors cannot and should not be treated the same way, as workers in sectors that are already back to full capacity.

    This is not about ‘picking winners’, in the Chancellor’s words.

    It is about protecting those who have lost – through no fault of their own. It is about giving people across the country a fair chance.

    The reward for months of sacrifice cannot be a redundancy notice.

    This week we saw a wave of companies announcing enormous job losses – because the government is refusing to shift from its one-size-fits-all approach.

    Smaller companies have a shorter redundancy period. To avoid the same flood of redundancy notices for workers within smaller companies later on this month, government must act now – and abandon its one-size-fits-all approach.

    When we talk about our economy, it can feel distant and remote: interest rates and budgets and spreadsheets. It is anything but.

    The economy is our jobs and family incomes.

    It is our high streets and our communities.

    It is the things that add meaning and character to the places we live and love.

    It is small business owners, who have put their life and soul into building their businesses.

    It has been heartbreaking to hear from many of them in recent weeks. How they feel their businesses slipping through their fingers because of a temporary lack of cash flow, even though with the right, targeted support now, they would be perfectly viable in the long term.

    That frustration, that anger, at working hard all your life, playing by the rules, doing the right thing, waiting your place patiently in the queue. Only to find it snatched away from you by a combination of this terrible crisis and government’s refusal to help.

    Supporting them now isn’t about picking winners.

    It’s about basic fairness.

    Government must also act now to provide support for those who have become unemployed.

    Instead, the DWP are re-introducing sanctions at a time when there are more than eight people unemployed for every vacancy.

    This government seems completely divorced from the scale of the unemployment crisis facing us.

    It must speedily put in place the ‘active labour market policy’ that already operates in many other countries, and which our JobCentres do not have the capacity to provide.

    Government must also act now to support the jobs of the future.

    And here we need guarantees of delivery, not just warm words.

    In 2015, the Conservative government promised to huge fanfare 200,000 new homes for first-time buyers. Not a single one of those homes was built.

    The Conservatives have talked and talked: they have not built.

    If you could construct houses out of Conservative press releases, promises and hot air, the housing crisis in this country would have ended years ago.

    Instead, the rate of homeownership has fallen, and almost 800,000 fewer households under-45 own their own home now, compared to in 2010.

    The Conservatives have talked and talked: they have not built.

    And on the green infrastructure that every region and nation of this country is crying out for, there have been promises and paper commitments, but precious little action.

    The Conservatives have talked and talked: they have not built.

    Two years ago, the National Infrastructure Commission published an assessment. There has been no official response.

    And this week the Prime Minister tried to claim he was creating a ‘New Deal’. Most of it was re-announcements of things we have heard before.

    So, it wasn’t really ‘new’.

    And, when we cut through the bluster and looked at the detail of what the Prime Minister was actually offering, it works out at less than £100 investment per person.

    So, it’s not much of a deal either.

    Ten years of Conservative government. Ten years of talk. Ten years of inaction.

    Instead of yet more promises and yet more talk, we need a laser focus – on jobs, jobs, jobs.

    To deliver on jobs, the Chancellor’s statement must meet four key tests.

    First, it must focus, not on re-announced, re-hashed prestige projects, but on supporting high-quality jobs.

    The test of a project can’t be if it piques the interest of the Prime Minister’s closest advisor.

    Instead, projects must involve local firms. They must give the local workforce new skills and training. They must lead to material improvement in the quality and availability of local employment.

    And, programmes to support employment must be measured against the success of schemes like the Future Jobs Fund, and reflect the different challenges faced by young workers, older workers, and particularly impacted areas of the UK.

    Second, the Chancellor’s statement must buck the trend of the last ten years and rebuild economic resilience right across our country.

    As a recent report noted:

    “[t]here is little chance of a so-called ‘bounce-back’ in areas such as Pendle, Burnley, or Barnsley where local authority service spending has fallen by 53 per cent, 51 per cent, and 35 per cent over the decade in real terms”.

    And public support for ailing companies must come with good-value strings attached, to support local employment, to keep value in the UK by avoiding dividend payments, share buybacks and the use of tax havens, and to adhere to strong environmental requirements.

    Third, every single project must be consistent with the drive to net-zero – so we can build the green jobs of the future.

    Last week’s Committee on Climate Change report showed how far behind the UK is falling – now is the time for action.

    Just as the German, Danish and South Korean stimulus packages have focused on green technologies, so must the UK’s, if we are to avoid falling behind other countries.

    And fourth, any benefits of investment now must not be cancelled out by poor decisions later.

    Because, while the Prime Minister says now that those who have borne the brunt of the crisis will not be called on to pay for it, we’ve seen the opposite over the last ten years.

    Since this dreadful virus struck, we have seen who our key workers really are.

    Those who staff our NHS; those working in our emergency services; those keeping supermarkets open; and the elderly and vulnerable cared for.

    Our keyworkers are the people keeping bins collected, children educated, and the country safe.

    Those on the frontline of this crisis have heroically risen to the challenge over the last few months – but, for many, that follows a decade of reductions in pay, security and living standards.

    Over the last ten years, the gap in income and wealth has increased, and living standards for low and middle-income people have stagnated – at the same time as taxes for the very best-off have been reduced.

    So finally, government must commit, at the very least, to not increase taxes or cut support for low and middle-income people, during the period while we recover from this crisis.

    Because just like the small business that fears for its future, what people want – what they deserve – is fairness.

    We cannot go back to business as normal.

    We cannot “wait and see”.

    We cannot have more empty promises.

    We cannot have more inaction.

    We need a response which recognises the scale of the challenge we face.

    And the first step in this, the first move to get Britain back on its feet, needs to happen now.

    Britain needs a Back to Work Budget – one that focuses on jobs, jobs, jobs.

  • Anneliese Dodds – 2020 Comments on Government’s Jobs Announcement

    Anneliese Dodds – 2020 Comments on Government’s Jobs Announcement

    Below is the text of the comments made by Anneliese Dodds, the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 29 June 2020.

    Unemployment has climbed to its highest level in a generation, and our country is suffering the worst economic hit of all industrialised nations. But instead of the Back-to-Work Budget our country needs focusing on one thing – jobs, jobs, jobs – the Chancellor will only be providing an ‘update’ on the economy.

    We urgently need the Conservatives to abandon their ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to the economic support schemes, which will inevitably lead to additional unemployment. And we need concrete action and a laser-like focus preventing further job losses and supporting future employment.

  • Ed Miliband – 2020 Speech on the Business and Planning Bill

    Ed Miliband – 2020 Speech on the Business and Planning Bill

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ed Miliband, the Labour MP for Doncaster North, in the House of Commons on 29 June 2020.

    May I start by thanking the Business Secretary for the constructive conversations that he and I have had on the Bill? As he knows, we support the measures contained in it.

    The wider context to this Bill is the economic crisis that we face, the scale of which we have not seen for a very long time. As an Opposition, we have tried to work constructively with Government. Indeed, we have welcomed a number of steps that the Government have taken. We called for the furlough scheme and indeed have welcomed it, though we believe that too many people remain excluded from support. We called for the 100% underwriting of Government-backed loans, and we have welcomed the bounce back loans, too. We have also supported the Government on the difficult decision to move from 2 metres to 1 metre-plus where 2 metres cannot be observed, although we do have concerns about the test, track and trace system.

    I hope that we can agree that the past few months have shown the power of Government to step in and protect jobs and businesses at a time of crisis. My case today is that that power has not gone away, and neither has the need for it to be exercised. The Government must not shrink from that, because, let us be clear, we are not at the end of this economic crisis, but just at the beginning of it.

    Let me deal first with the provisions in the Bill. It is a short Bill and there is a large degree of agreement on it. The headline provisions, as the Secretary of State has said, will enable the hospitality industry to reopen quickly and serve a greater number of customers in a safe environment. We welcome the temporary loosening of planning regulations to enable bars, restaurants and cafés to serve customers outside their premises. I take the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) has made about the need for some caution here. It is important that local authorities continue to have discretion in these matters because they are best placed to make the judgments about the local impacts. It is also right to put on record the concerns of the shop workers’ union, USDAW, which has worried about the safety of staff. The guidance is very clear about the mitigation and reduction of risk that is needed if 1 metre-plus is in place, and I am sure the Secretary of State agrees that that is really important, and that it is also very important that the Health & Safety Executive takes a tough line in enforcing safety as well.

    We also welcome the measures in enabling construction sites to get back to work more easily through extended working hours. Again, and I am sure that Members across the House will agree with me, it is in the interests of local residents that local authorities have discretion in these matters.

    Meg Hillier

    I think we agree about the need for local authorities to have discretion, but they also need resources. In my borough, we have more than 1,300 licensed premises in a very small area of London, and a lot of licensing officers are needed just to deal with the flow of applications. Does my right hon. Friend not think that the Government need to address that?

    Edward Miliband

    My hon. Friend in her customary eloquent way anticipates my next point. We have seen—and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed), the shadow Secretary of State for local government, for giving me the exact figures—£10 billion of costs loaded on to local authorities during this crisis, and only £3.2 billion provided by Government, despite the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government saying that the Government would stand behind councils and give them the funding they need. We have another Bill that puts yet more pressure on local authorities, but with no clear plan about how they will be reimbursed, and our new clause 5 speaks to that issue.

    We also welcome the changes to transport licensing and the removal of the unfair relationship provision in the Consumer Credit Act to ensure that bounce-back loans are more easily accessed. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the detailed discussions that we had about that particular provision.

    Those are the main provisions of the Bill and, as I said, there is cross-party agreement on them. Obviously, there will be detailed discussions in Committee. However, I have to say to the Secretary of State and the House that we are under an illusion if we think that the measures in this Bill will go much of the way towards addressing the crisis that we face: 4 July represents a reopening of pubs and restaurants, but it does not represent recovery.

    It is important to note that many sections of our economy employing hundreds of thousands of people, including gyms, leisure centres, live entertainment venues, beauty salons, conference facilities, night clubs and swimming pools, will still not be able to open for public health reasons. We support those public health decisions. Other parts of our economy will open only with severe restrictions, including large parts of our hospitality industry, which employs 3 million people or one in 10 of the whole workforce. The British Beer and Pub Association says that 25% of pubs will not be able to reopen even at 1 metre. The Government themselves acknowledge, in the scientific assessment of the change to 1 metre, that the hospitality industry will lose 25% to 40% of its revenue even at 1 metre distancing. That revenue translates into a risk to hundreds of thousands of jobs. Live performance remains prohibited, which affects the theatre sector, employing 290,000 people. Manufacturers, too, are reeling from the fall in domestic and worldwide demand.

    I say all that not to cast doubt on the public health measures being taken or to speak against the Bill, but to point to the wider context, which is that the Government are taking a one-size-fits-all approach to the furlough, for example, demanding an employer contribution from August and a cliff edge at the end of October. The shadow business Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), received this letter from a venue in Manchester in the past week:

    “As the Government furlough scheme draws to a close, I will be making very difficult decisions this week so that I can give notice during the period of 80% furlough contribution to commence a redundancy consultation with the majority of my venue staff. With zero income and no appropriate financial Government support, I have no choice but to make these decisions.”

    We are not asking the impossible of Government; we are saying, “Look at what other countries are doing”, whether that is Spain, Italy, New Zealand, France or Germany. They are taking a sectoral approach to the furlough. They are saying that specific sectors are more affected by the public health measures and that, therefore, the economic measures have to match that.

    Richard Fuller

    The shadow Secretary of State will be aware that the Government measures taken across the economy, which he has welcomed, already raise issues of fairness between those who fall one side of the line and those who fall on the other side. What is his proposal for those sectors? Some businesses will fall just to one side, but who will be the expert to understand who fits where? I am all up for it if he can reconcile that, but there are risks, are there not?

    Edward Miliband

    Of course there are, but just because we cannot do everything does not mean that we should not do anything. The grants programme that the Government introduced was done by sector—retail, hospitality and leisure. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about boundaries, and some business organisations would raise that issue, but I worry that technical concerns about boundaries, which have been overcome for the grants scheme, stop us doing something that makes real sense.

    Kevin Hollinrake

    What the right hon. Gentleman says about the sector-based nature of the grants scheme highlights the problem in his argument. All MPs in this place, I am sure, have been contacted by people—in the hospitality supply chain, for example—who were not getting support. It is so difficult to take a sector-based approach. Will he concede that that is not as easy as he thinks?

    Edward Miliband

    Of course it is not easy, but the hon. Gentleman’s implication is that nothing can be done for those sectors that are obviously more affected by the public health measures.

    Kevin Hollinrake indicated dissent.

    Edward Miliband

    The hon. Gentleman is shaking his head. If things can be done, they should be done, but my point is that the strength of the Government response is that it has been comprehensive. It has used the power of Government and it has not necessarily taken a one-size-fits-all approach. I am worried—we see this in the evidence that has been brought forward—about the one-size-fits-all approach.

    Kevin Hollinrake

    I speak as a business person as well as a Member of Parliament. In my view, the Chancellor made the job retention scheme very generous, continuing it a lot longer than many thought it would; and rather than have a sector-based scheme to help some people and not others, he has tried to help all employers and make it flexible for all the different categories of employer.

    Edward Miliband

    I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important that we have had the furlough, but I disagree that it should be cut off at the end of October, because I really worry about the economic impact. We have 2.8 million people already claiming unemployment-related benefits, and I worry about the implications for these other industries.

    The tragedy is that the Government have spent £22 billion on the furlough, but I fear that we will throw away some of that investment by not recognising that specific sectors face specific challenges. I urge the Business Secretary—he knows this, as he talks to the same people that I do—to use all the powers of his office to make representations to the Chancellor to find a way of fixing that, so that we have a sector-specific approach to the furlough, including an extension beyond October.

    Just as I do not believe that the furlough should be abruptly ended, I believe that there are issues of access to loan finance. As I have said, the bounce back loans scheme has been successful at getting money out of the door, but the same cannot be said of the other small business loan scheme, the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme. In the case of CBILS, only half of all applications have been approved, and the supposed freeing up of the scheme as a result of bounce back loans being made available is yet to materialise. We still do not know why 48,000 out of 98,000 CBILS loans are stuck in a holding pattern, and we do not know how many have been rejected and how many are still in the queue. One of the things we are asking for in the Bill is for the Government to publish data on the true number of rejections and the total number of inquiries.

    The problem is not just with the small loan scheme. We have seen a wave of job losses in manufacturing, from Rolls-Royce to McLaren to Jaguar Land Rover. Make UK is predicting that as many as 170,000 jobs could be lost this year in the manufacturing sector alone. Any talk of levelling up will come to nought if we lose those jobs—I am sure that sentiment is shared across the House—and I urge the Secretary of State to look at the international comparisons of France and Germany, which have protected and supported strategic sectors of the economy, such as steel, aerospace and automotive, in a number of different ways. That is why our amendment to the Bill calls on the Government also to publish the true number of rejections in respect of the larger loan scheme, the coronavirus large business interruption loan scheme, and explain why 400 larger businesses have not been able to access support through the scheme. Again, we do not know whether they are stuck in a holding pattern and still waiting in the queue or have just been rejected. These sectors are calling for tailored Government support to help them through the crisis, but it has not been forthcoming. The big point is that, from hospitality to leisure to manufacturing, this is a general recession, but it was also much more acute in specific sectors, and the Government need to recognise this far more in their response.

    If one part of the Government’s strategy is about shielding sectors of our economy from the sectoral recession, the other part must be about job creation and employment. We are to have a speech tomorrow from the Prime Minister. It is a shame that we do not have a Budget; I do not really understand why we do not have a Budget in what is potentially the worst recession in 300 years. If now is not the time for a Budget, I do not know when is the time for a Budget, but there is a speech tomorrow and big promises are being made about it.

    The Bill rightly talks about what can be done in the construction sector. The way to help the construction sector is not just to tweak the operational hours, although that is important, but also to deliver on some of the promises the Government have made. Again, I think this view can be shared across the House; I do not often quote the Conservative manifesto approvingly—[Interruption.]—or at least not enough, but it promised £9.2 billion for energy efficiency in public and private buildings. Conservative Members all stood on that manifesto and I am sure that they support it.

    We know how behind the Government are on building retrofits. The Committee on Climate Change recently said that there has been “negligible progress since 2015” and that the challenge of retrofit and renovation has gone “largely unaddressed.” We know that investing in retrofit is the ultimate win-win. This is the ideal opportunity—it would help the construction sector, not just in relation to operational hours, and could create tens of thousands of jobs—but today there are reports that it is being blocked by none other than Dominic Cummings. Apparently, he is uninterested and thinks it is “boring old housing insulation”. The Secretary of State and I have a good relationship, and I am happy to give way to him so that he can say that the £9 billion is going to happen. We need the £9 billion, so I am happy to give way. He has overruled Dominic Cummings on Sunday trading; now is the time to overrule him on this.

    Let us also bring forward the £12 billion of social housing spending that has been promised. All these things are important, and they are also part of job creation. I think the idea that we need a green recovery is shared throughout the House, as least at the level of principle. Some people—assiduous readers—will have read over the weekend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster’s rather long speech, which mentioned Franklin Roosevelt 17 times. [Interruption.] I see Members nodding. Let me tell the House about Roosevelt: he put 3 million people back to work in the Civilian Conservation Corps. We need that kind of ambition on retrofit; on manufacturing low-carbon engines; on adapting our towns and cities to walking and cycling; on creating green spaces; and on reforesting and rewilding. We need what I call a zero-carbon army as part of a youth jobs fund.

    We should see all these things as part of the green new deal because—this is the point—we face an unemployment emergency in this country. We should be under no illusions: a million young people are forecast to be out of work this year. We need a scale of action that matches that. That is my point. The Government measures we have supported over the past few months have recognised the power of active government in a crisis like this. My appeal to the Government is not to shrink from that now, because we are just at the beginning.

    To conclude, we welcome the Bill as a step to help the hospitality and construction industry to reopen, but it is not nearly enough. The Government have shown that they are willing to take action, but we face the deepest and sharpest recession, possibly for hundreds of years, and Government power has to be continued to be used. The decisions taken by the Government in the coming weeks will determine how many jobs are lost and how many businesses survive. The commitment to do whatever it takes cannot be a hollow promise. We are calling for an extension to the furlough for specific sectors; an urgent job-creation programme with a green recovery at its heart; and real action on infrastructure, not just words. I urge the Government not to step back when our economy, our businesses and our workers desperately need support.

  • Alok Sharma – 2020 Statement on the Business and Planning Bill

    Alok Sharma – 2020 Statement on the Business and Planning Bill

    Below is the text of the statement made by Alok Sharma, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, in the House of Commons on 29 June 2020.

    I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

    Covid-19 has had a profound impact across the economy. It required many businesses to shut their doors on 23 March, and they have taken a significant economic hit to protect the public’s health, so it was vitally important, at the start of this pandemic, that we put our arms around businesses to provide them with support to protect our people’s livelihoods at the same time as we protected our nation’s health.

    So far, the job retention scheme has supported over 9 million jobs; 2.6 million people have been helped by the self-employment scheme; over 850,000 small businesses have benefited from around £10.5 billion in grants; and over £40 billion of Government-backed loans have been made to over 970,000 businesses. Every one of these interventions has helped individual families in each of our constituencies, but we are now reopening the economy in a cautious and phased manner, and the measures in the Bill are designed to provide a boost to businesses to help them as they look to bounce back from a period of enforced hibernation.

    On 25 June, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill received Royal Assent, and I thank the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and all colleagues for their support in an expeditious passage for that Bill. Similarly, I hope we will be able to expedite the passage of the Business and Planning Bill. I acknowledge the very constructive discussions that we have had on the individual measures in the Bill with the shadow Secretary of State and, indeed, all shadow Ministers.

    The overall aim of the Bill is to provide an adrenaline boost to key sectors of our economy. We want to support the hospitality sector by allowing outdoor dining and off-premises sale of alcohol, helping the sector back on its feet with the promise of al fresco dining for all this summer.

    Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)

    Does my right hon. Friend agree that the measures allowing al fresco dining are essential to allowing the food and hospitality sector to bounce back following lockdown, and will he encourage all those businesses to go and update their ceramics and buy purely from Stoke-on-Trent?

    Alok Sharma

    My hon. Friend makes a compelling case for his constituency, and he makes an equally important point that this is an opportunity to get businesses going—up and running—after a period of enforced hibernation.

    Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)

    We are all very grateful for my right hon. Friend’s efforts, particularly to help small businesses. I have noticed in Lincolnshire that small businesses and shops seem to have done better during the lockdown, as people have wanted to shop locally. As we are helping small business, would it not be a retrograde step if we were to reopen Sunday trading laws, since it is our present Sunday trading laws that do so much to protect small shops and businesses from large businesses and supermarkets?

    Alok Sharma

    As my right hon. Friend will know, measures related to Sunday trading are not in the Bill, but of course Sunday trading has been temporarily relaxed in the past, during the Olympics, and that was about ensuring support for businesses and consumers. But as I said, that is not in the Bill.

    Through this Bill, we also want to support the construction sector to get Britain building again by enabling the extension of site operating hours and extending until 1 April 2021 planning permissions that have lapsed or will lapse between 23 March and 31 December.

    Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)

    Does my right hon. Friend agree that construction is vital to getting our economy going, including in South Ribble, where my constituents are looking forward to the new Tesco’s in Penwortham? For that reason, I welcome these measures. Does he agree that they are vital to supporting growth as we come out of lockdown?

    Alok Sharma

    My hon. Friend makes an important point. I know she is working incredibly hard to support businesses in South Ribble, and I am sure she is looking forward to going to the Tesco’s once it is up and running.

    We also want to support the transport sector by enabling shorter-term licences for drivers of heavy goods vehicles and passenger carrying vehicles and allowing for the risk-based testing of HGVs and public service vehicles. These measures will allow goods and public transport to keep moving. We want to continue to support small and medium-sized enterprises through the quicker delivery of bounce-back loans, which have provided a financial lifeline for more than 920,000 small businesses so far. This measure is retrospective and will disapply elements of consumer credit law.

    Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)

    I speak as co-chair of the all-party group on fair business banking and support the suspension of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 with regard to bounce-back loans due to affordability issues, but does the Secretary of State agree that it is vital that lenders still comply with the requirement to treat customers fairly in the collection process or if there are debt issues later on and that forbearance is applied?

    Alok Sharma

    As ever, my hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point. Yes, forbearance is part of these measures, and we would expect that very much to apply.

    Before I turn to the detail of the Bill, I want to thank all those across industry and both Houses who have engaged with the Government to help develop the measures in the Bill. I also thank the Local Government Association, the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the Home Builders Federation and the British Property Federation for sharing their expertise. I am pleased to say that the measures in the Bill enjoy wide stakeholder support. The LGA, the Federation of Small Businesses, the British Beer and Pub Association, UKHospitality, the Freight Transport Association, the Road Haulage Association, the Royal Town Planning Institute, the British Property Federation and UK Finance have all expressed their support.

    Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)

    I add my name to that long list, but can my right hon. Friend give some confidence to local authorities? There are a lot of planning rules and regulations, and some of our planning officers are quite conservative in their interpretation. Where there is discretion, can we send the message out from this place that decisions must be decided in favour of business and of opening up?

    Alok Sharma

    Of course we want to make sure that businesses open up, and we want local authorities to help local businesses do that, which is precisely the reason for these measures. We will publish guidance alongside the measures in the Bill, and I would ask local authorities to adhere to it. If my hon. Friend has any specific suggestions, I would be very happy to hear from him, as would my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, who will wind up this debate.

    Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)

    My right hon. Friend is making a compelling case for giving a boost to many sectors of the economy, but will he reflect on the fact that some sectors will not be able to reopen because of the necessary rules? I am thinking of theatres, concert venues and other music venues. Given the need to adhere to the rules, will he make special provision for those that cannot trade their way out of difficulty?

    On the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) made, it would be very unfortunate if any of these venues, theatres or concert halls fell into insolvency, and we hope to avoid that, but in doing so we should guard against granting planning permissions that take them immediately out of those very valued uses. Will my right hon. Friend reflect on both during the passage of this Bill?

    Alok Sharma

    My right hon. Friend, who has previously served as Business Secretary with great distinction, raises a number of important points. On insolvency, he will know that with the support of both Houses, we passed the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020, which came into effect on 25 June. When it comes to providing support to businesses, I think the best thing we can possibly do is to open them up, and I know that that is a sentiment that he will appreciate as a former Business Secretary. I would love to be able to have the whole economy operating and opening up, but we all understand why we are taking a phased and cautious approach: we want to continue to meet our five tests, and we want to ensure that the R value stays below one. In the tourism sector and the theatre sector, which he mentioned, ministerial colleagues are working closely on these issues.

    I turn first to the temporary measures in the Bill to step up the recovery of our hospitality sector. Our 127,000 pubs, restaurants and cafés, which employ around 2 million people, are the lifeblood of our high streets and town centres. Social distancing guidelines significantly affect their capacity to accommodate customers, and food and beverage service activity has fallen by nearly 90% in the last quarter. The Bill introduces a temporary fast-track process for pubs, cafés and restaurants to obtain local council permission to place tables and chairs on the pavement outside their premises.

    Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)

    I spent my weekend in Dartmouth speaking to some of those businesses in the hospitality and tourism trade. May I associate myself with the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) about making sure that councils are not over-zealous in their approach to allowing businesses to adopt the measures in the Bill for outdoor dining? I think it is very important that we can give those businesses reassurance.

    Alok Sharma

    Of course my hon. Friend makes an important point, but I think local authorities will understand that it is in their self-interest to ensure that businesses can open and that high streets flourish. I certainly encourage businesses to look at the guidance and adhere to it.

    Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)

    In my borough, licensed premises are a very important part of the local economy, and we work with local residents to support them. This measure, with seven days’ notice, allows an enormous amount of off-sales, which are already causing havoc in my constituency with people defecating, urinating and leaving problems in parks. People are talking about fake Glastonbury. This is going to cost my borough a lot of money to police. We are not party poopers, but we do not want the other sort of pooping, either. Will the Secretary of State make provision to allow councils some discretion where there is a particular problem with a licensed premises causing antisocial behaviour?

    Alok Sharma

    Ultimately, it is possible to revoke these permissions, and expedited processes have been put in place. Nobody wants to see bad behaviour, but this is a 10-day process, and there is an opportunity in the first five working days for anyone to put in their views to the local authority. Ultimately, the local authority decides. There is also a clear requirement that a legible notice is put up at the premises, so anyone who is in the locality will be able to see it when they pass by, and they can make representations if they wish. These new measures will cut the time to receive approval for this licence from an average of 42 working days to just 10 working days, and the application fee is capped at £100.

    Public safety and access for disabled people using pavements is of course absolutely vital, so I can confirm that local authorities will be able to refuse or revoke licences where appropriate. The Government will be publishing minimum requirements and guidance for footway widths and distances required for access by disabled people.

    Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)

    The Secretary of State spoke earlier about the organisations that he has consulted. Has he engaged with, say, the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association to understand the sorts of risks and challenges that people with sight loss face? We have a centre for guide dogs in my constituency. This is a real issue for these organisations.

    Alok Sharma

    I can confirm that we have engaged with disability groups in the preparation of the clauses in this Bill.

    We will also be making changes to alcohol licensing. Currently, any licensee wishing to add off-the-premises sales permission has to apply for a licence variation. This takes time, with a 28-day notice period, adverts placed, and sometimes a hearing. Ordinarily, of course, that is necessary. However, hospitality businesses are not operating in ordinary economic times, as we all acknowledge, so the Government are temporarily changing the process. Under the measures in this Bill, most licences will automatically and temporarily be extended to include off-the-premises sales. However, there are safeguards in place. The extension will not include premises that have been denied off-sales permission or had it removed within the past three years. Taken together, these measures will help our hospitality industry to get back to business over the busy summer months.

    Meg Hillier

    Has the right hon. Gentleman given any thought to allowing a review of this Bill, because—I am particularly talking about the hospitality industry—it will be coming into operation over a busy summer period, and we will see the effects of that? If he were to agree to a three-month review period where we, as a House, can see the evidence and then, if necessary, amend legislation, that would be a welcome step.

    Alok Sharma

    First, these are of course temporary measures. A 90-day rolling review, which I think the hon. Lady is proposing, would undermine the certainty that we are giving businesses in terms of these particular measures. She will know, however, that should the Government wish to extend any of the measures, they will be subject to made affirmative or draft affirmative procedures, so they will come before the House before there is any opportunity to extend them further.

    I now return to the issue of trying to get the construction sector moving. In 2018, this sector represented almost 9% of our GDP. Lockdown has had a profound impact on construction sites across the country. We estimate that almost 1,200 unimplemented major residential planning permissions, with capacity to deliver over 60,000 homes, have lapsed or will lapse between the start of lockdown on 23 March and 31 December this year. Therefore, the Bill introduces powers to extend these planning permissions and listed building consents to 1 April 2021. This will be automatic for permissions that have not lapsed at the point that these measures come into force. Lapsed permissions can be reinstated and can benefit from the same extension, but subject to necessary environmental approvals.

    We will also make it quicker for developers to apply for longer construction site working hours. This will help to facilitate safe working—for example, by staggering workers’ hours—and to make up for lost progress. Applications will be concluded within 14 days. This measure does not apply to applications from individual householders. Local authorities retain discretion and can refuse applications where there would be an unacceptable impact. Again, this is a temporary measure. Extended hours can only last up until 1 April 2021, unless extended by secondary legislation.

    Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)

    Across my constituency, there is already tremendous local sensitivity about excessive developments, the planning process and some of the procedures for public participation in the process being curtailed—there are virtual meetings and sometimes council executives make decisions on their own. Will the Secretary of State assure me that the Bill will not limit public participation in anything that might be the result of an extension or expansion of existing planning permission or indeed a new planning permission?

    Alok Sharma

    No, it will not. I will talk a bit about hybrid appeal proceedings, and I think my hon. Friend will find that helpful.

    There are two further planning measures that relate to the new spatial development strategy for London and hybrid appeal proceedings. The Mayor of London will shortly publish the new spatial development strategy, setting out plans for new homes for London. The Bill temporarily removes, until 31 December, the requirement for the strategy to be available for physical inspection and to provide hard copies on request. That ask from the Mayor of London will help to address practical challenges from social distancing.

    Social distancing has also constrained the Planning Inspectorate’s ability to conduct hearings and inquires, and a backlog has been growing. Through the Bill, we will enable the inspectorate to combine written representations, hearings and inquiries when dealing with appeals. That change was recommended by the independent Rosewell review. A recent pilot undertaken on the review measures reduced average decision-making time from 47 weeks to 23 weeks.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    The Secretary of State mentioned 60,000 houses that big companies will be able to build, but does he recognise that small and medium-sized companies that do refurbishments, extensions and small works are critical to the core of the economy? Will he ensure that they can also progress their applications through councils for approval? They may be sitting on the line where that may not happen.

    Alok Sharma

    As I said, these measures will not relate to residential applications that have been made. The whole point is to get the construction sector moving. I have talked about a range of measures that we have set out for the sector, and I hope that more SME builders will be able to take advantage of them.

    The Bill will enable lenders to continue issuing bounce-back loans quickly and at scale. It will retrospectively disapply the unfair relationships provisions in the Consumer Credit Act 1974 for lending made under the scheme. Reflecting current circumstances, the bounce-back loan scheme allows lenders to rely on self-certification from the business that it meets the eligibility criteria for the scheme and can afford to pay back the loan. It also provides for simpler information disclosure requirements to the borrowers. That will ensure that small businesses can continue to access the financial support that they need without undue delay.

    Richard Fuller

    I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. I want to take him back to the point about public participation, because it is such a sensitive area. He said that in clause 20, the procedures for planning proceedings can be altered. Either now or in Committee, can he clarify who will be making those decisions and what impact that will have on public participation in relation to housing developments that might have a dramatic impact in the area? I want to be clear about whether the Bill will affect that dramatically.

    Alok Sharma

    The Minister for Housing, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher), will deal with the details of that. The point of these measures is to get the economy going, which my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) is keen to do. I understand his point, and we will address it in Committee.

    The Bill temporarily allows the issuing of one-year lorry or bus driving licence renewals, rather than the standard five years. Shorter renewals will be allowed if an applicant is otherwise healthy but unable to obtain the medical report required for a five-year licence. That will relieve pressure on GPs and allow drivers to continue to work.

    The Bill also reforms powers to exempt temporarily goods vehicles, buses and coaches from roadworthiness testing. That will allow the high demand for heavy-vehicle testing, which restarts from 4 July, to be managed in a manner that prioritises road safety by targeting higher-risk vehicles or operators.

    In conclusion, the Government have stood shoulder to shoulder with businesses throughout the covid-19 emergency and now, as we emerge from this pandemic, we need to support our economic recovery and help businesses with more flexible ways of working. The great British economy, helped by a willing public, is reawakening from its enforced slumber. Taken together, the measures in the Bill are designed to provide a much-needed economic boost, and I commend it to the House.

  • Lucy Powell – 2020 Comments on UK Automotive Jobs

    Lucy Powell – 2020 Comments on UK Automotive Jobs

    Below is the text of the comments made by Lucy Powell, the Shadow Minister for Business and Consumers, on 23 June 2020.

    This warning from the automotive industry underlines the scale of the crisis facing British manufacturing. It’s clear that the government must act to safeguard our car industry and the hundreds of thousands of high paid high skilled jobs in communities that can ill afford to lose them.

    We are in danger of being overtaken by international competitors like France who have stepped in to support and sustain their car industries through this crisis. With the right action now, the UK could lead the world in a green revolution in automotive. No action will lead to devastation and long-term damage to communities who rely on these jobs. That’s why Labour is calling for a green recovery and a back to work budget focused on jobs, jobs, jobs.

  • Pat McFadden – 2020 Speech on Financial Markets after Exiting the European Union

    Pat McFadden – 2020 Speech on Financial Markets after Exiting the European Union

    Below is the text of the speech made by Pat McFadden, the Labour MP for Wolverhampton South East, in the House of Commons on 16 June 2020.

    Like many who have spoken in the Chamber today, on the fourth anniversary of her death, my thoughts are very much with our former colleague Jo Cox and her family.

    As we heard from the Minister’s opening statement, these statutory instruments are quite technical in nature. I would like to thank him for his welcome, and to thank him and his officials for providing some briefing on their meaning and effect. Overall, these instruments seek to replicate at national level the regulatory regime for financial services to which we currently subscribe—and which in many cases the UK designed—at EU level. Until the end of the transition period, we will of course continue to follow the EU’s regulatory rulebook. This is about what will happen in January if, as the Government confirmed last week, the end of this year marks the end of the transition period.​

    As the Minister outlined, the regulations cover areas such as money laundering, supervision, central counterparties, the cross-border distribution of funds and the desire to maintain the pre-Brexit relationship between the UK and Gibraltar on financial services. In most of these cases, they are taking the supervision of the rules governing these areas from EU bodies and transferring them to either the Treasury, the Bank of England or the Financial Conduct Authority.

    On the detail, I have a few questions I would like to put to the Minister. On the money laundering provisions, why is the current duty to co-operate with supervisors in other countries being removed and replaced with the weaker power to co-operate if we so choose? In what circumstances would we not want to co-operate to tackle money laundering, which can fund everything from international terrorism to the drugs trade? On cross-border distribution of funds, can the Minister confirm that these statutory instruments enshrine the loss of passporting rights for our financial services that will result from the Government’s decision to withdraw from the single market as well as from the EU itself? On equivalence determinations, can he confirm that, although these SIs create a regime for the UK to make decisions on the regulatory regime in other countries, as yet we have no guarantee that our own regulatory regime will be regarded as equivalent by the rest of the EU?

    We can only hope that this exercise in taking back control is a little more convincing than last week’s decision on border checks from the Cabinet Office. After having four years to prepare, the Government dropped their plans for border checks on goods because we simply could not implement them, even though our own goods will be subject to border checks when we export them overseas.

    Paragraph 36 of the political declaration, on which the current negotiation is based, states that the UK should have concluded its equivalence assessments by the end of this month. If we are only now legislating to take the powers to do that, can that exercise possibly be completed in just two weeks’ time?

    Taken together, these changes and others in similar statutory instruments represent a significant increase in the functions and power of the Treasury, the Bank of England and the Financial Conduct Authority. What accountability arrangements will there be for those bodies in the exercise of their new powers? Alongside the transfer of functions, accountability must surely be enhanced if claims of restoring parliamentary sovereignty are to mean anything in reality.

    More broadly, there is an obvious contradiction at the heart of all this. These regulations are intended to ensure continuity for UK financial services at the end of the transition period, yet the Government’s stated intention for withdrawal is to erect new trade barriers between our financial services and the rest of the EU, so even as we replicate at UK level the EU regulations that we played such a big part in designing, we are pursuing a course that will be incapable of replicating the market access that we have at the moment.

    That is not my judgment; it is the stated aim of Government policy. It is the equivalent of one of the shops reopening this week and putting lots of new stock in its window but telling a substantial proportion of its ​previous customers that they are no longer welcome to shop in the store. For all the debate there has been about Brexit, its impact on services has not been debated nearly as much as it should have been.

    We are not dealing here with just-in-time supply chains and trucks on ferries; we are dealing with regulations and rules. We are taking the area that makes up 80% of our economy and, in the case of financial services, a sector in which we trade at a substantial surplus with other countries, and inserting new barriers between us and our nearest customers. The fact that the sector is resigned to that and has established alternative bases in Dublin, Luxembourg or wherever does not change the reality of it.

    We do not intend to divide the House on these measures, because regulatory continuity is better than not having a regime in place at all, but no amount of duplication can avoid the basic fact that although we can replicate the rules, we cannot replicate the market access to which these rules apply at the moment and for which they were designed in the first place.

  • John Glen – 2020 Statement on Financial Markets after Exiting the European Union

    John Glen – 2020 Statement on Financial Markets after Exiting the European Union

    Below is the text of the statement made by John Glen, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, in the House of Commons on 16 June 2020.

    I welcome my opposite number, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), to his place. He has a distinguished history of public service and I look forward to a constructive dialogue with him today and on future occasions.

    As the House will be aware, the Treasury has been undertaking a significant programme of financial services legislation since 2018, introducing almost 60 statutory instruments under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. It has been an enormous privilege for me to do the vast majority of those measures. These SIs were made prior to exit day—31 January 2020—and covered all essential legislative changes needed to ensure a coherent and functioning financial services regime at the point of exit, had the UK not entered a transition period.

    The European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 received Royal Assent in January this year. The 2020 Act contains a general rule that delays those parts of the SIs that would have come into force immediately before, on or after exit day, so that they instead come into force by reference to the end of the transition period, which we leave at the end of this year. Over the course of this year the Treasury will therefore, where necessary, continue to use powers under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, as amended by the 2020 Act, to prepare for 1 January 2021. This will involve the Treasury bringing forward a small number of SIs that, in particular, will ensure that recently applicable EU legislation will operate effectively in the UK at the end of the transition period. The SIs before the House today are two such instruments. The approach taken in these SIs is aligned with the general approach established by the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018, providing continuity by retaining existing legislation at the end of the transition period but amending where necessary to ensure effectiveness in the UK-only context.

    I turn to the draft Over the Counter Derivatives, Central Counterparties and Trade Repositories (Amendment, etc., and Transitional Provision) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. From now on, I will refer to this instrument as the OTC SI. In preparation for the UK’s withdrawal from the EU on 31 January 2020, Parliament approved several ​EU exit instruments to ensure that the European market infrastructure regulation would continue to operate effectively in the UK at the point of exit. EMIR was updated on 1 January this year by a regulation known as EMIR 2.2, which now applies in the UK. The OTC SI that we are discussing today address deficiencies in the UK’s post-transition framework arising as a result of that update.

    EMIR is Europe’s response to the G20 Pittsburgh commitment in 2009 to regulate over-the-counter derivative markets in the aftermath of the last financial crisis. EMIR mandates the use of central counterparties, known as CCPs, to manage risk between users of derivative products. EMIR has been effective in increasing the safety and transparency of derivative markets, thereby reducing the associated risks that users may face, and UK CCPs play an essential role in reducing systemic risk and ensuring the efficient functioning of global financial markets.

    EMIR 2.2 introduced an updated third country or non-EU CCP supervision framework, including an updated recognition regime. This means that EU authorities can have greater oversight over third country CCPs that are systemically important to the EU. Perhaps the most substantial update in EMIR 2.2 is the ability for the European Securities and Markets Authority to tier third country CCPs according to their systemic importance to the EU as part of the recognition process. ESMA will now take on certain supervisory responsibilities for systemic third country CCPs known as tier 2 CCPs.

    This OTC SI updates the UK’s recognition framework in line with EMIR 2.2 by transferring ESMA’s new powers to the Bank of England after we leave the transition period. That includes the ability to tier non-UK CCPs as part of the recognition process, and to supervise non-UK CCPs that are systemically important to the UK. The Bank of England has already been given the power to recognise non-UK CCPs wishing to operate in the UK in an earlier SI under the EU (Withdrawal) Act. EMIR 2.2 also empowers the Commission to adopt delegated Acts setting out the details of how the framework will function in practice. This includes how tiering and deference to the rules of home authorities referred to as “comparable compliance” will function. This instrument transfers the power to establish these frameworks to the Bank of England.

    Since the Bank already has responsibility for safeguarding financial stability in general, and managing systemic risk in CCPs in particular, this is an appropriate conferral of functions as it allows the Bank to manage the systemic risk posed by some non-UK CCPs in a way that is appropriate for the UK. The statutory instrument therefore transfers the remaining Commission functions—including the power to deploy the so-called location policy—to Her Majesty’s Treasury.

    Under EMIR 2.2, ESMA can recommend to the Commission that a third-country CCP that is felt to be substantially systemically important should lose permission to offer some services to EU clearing members, unless those services are offered from inside the EU. This is referred to as the location policy, the inclusion of which in EMIR 2.2 the UK did not support because of concerns that it could lead to market fragmentation and reduce the benefits provided by the global nature of clearing. However, the powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 under which we introduced the SI extend only ​to the addressing of deficiencies arising from withdrawal. During the passage of that legislation, commitments were made that the powers would not be used to make significant policy changes, so I am not going to deviate from that.

    The OTC SI transfers the powers to use the location policy to the Treasury, subject to advice from the Bank of England and appropriate procedural safeguards and transitional provisions. I assure the House that because of the very different nature of the UK’s clearing markets, it is hard to foresee circumstances in which the Bank would appropriate the use of that tool in practice. EMIR 2.2 also makes changes to internally used supervisory and co-operation mechanisms but, as the UK is no longer part of the EU, those provisions are removed by the SI.

    Finally, the OTC SI updates the recognition powers set out in the temporary recognition regime, which was established by a previous SI to enable non-UK CCPs to continue their activities in the UK after exit day, while their recognition applications are assessed. This SI updates the recognition requirements in line with the new EMIR 2.2 provisions. The Treasury has worked closely with the Bank of England to prepare the instrument and has also engaged with the financial services industry, as we have done throughout. The draft legislation has been publicly available on the legislation.gov.uk website since 24 February, and the instrument was laid before Parliament on 25 March.

    In summary, the OTC SI is necessary to ensure that existing EMIR legislation will continue to function effectively in the UK from the end of the transition period, following the updates made in EMIR 2.2. In particular, it will ensure that the UK has the tools necessary to manage the financial stability risks posed by some of the largest non-UK CCPs.

    Let me turn my attention towards the second of tonight’s SIs, the Financial Services (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. Although this SI makes amendments to approximately 20 pieces of legislation, the number and nature of the amendments are modest and minor. They act to preserve the effect of recent changes to EU legislation in the UK, and in doing so limit any impact on business that would otherwise arise at the end of the transition period.

    Primarily, this SI fixes deficiencies in recently applicable EU legislation, which is congruous with the Treasury’s approach to previous financial services EU exit instruments and the approach required by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. It also revokes pieces of retained EU law and UK domestic law that it would not be appropriate to keep on the statute book at the end of the transition period.

    This SI contains a small number of minor clarifications and corrections to previous financial services EU exit instruments. The House will be aware of the unprecedented scale of the legislative programme that the Treasury has undertaken, which has been carried out with rigorous checking procedures. However, errors are unfortunately made on occasion, and when they arise it is important that they are corrected as soon as possible. This has happened previously, and I will continue to be completely transparent when such shortcomings become apparent.​

    I note that this SI also includes provisions initially included in the Cross-Border Distribution of Funds, Proxy Advisors, Prospectus and Gibraltar (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid using the made affirmative procedure in October 2019, when at the time it was necessary to ensure that the SI was in place prior to the previous exit date of 31 October. That SI subsequently ceased to have effect, but it is important that those provisions, which include amendments to the UK’s prospectus regime to ensure it remains operational in a wholly domestic context, are in force before the end of the transition period. Those provisions have therefore been included in this IS.

    I would like to say a few words on the amendments that this SI makes to a previous EU exit instrument, the Equivalence Determinations for Financial Services and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which I shall now refer to as the equivalence SI. The equivalence SI allows the Treasury to make equivalence directions for EEA states during the transition period for specified provisions. Today’s SI adds additional equivalence regimes to the scope of the power for the Treasury to make equivalence directions for EEA states during the transition period. This is through the inclusion of provisions relating to central securities depositories, which are entities that hold financial instruments and trade repositories that collect and maintain records of derivative trades.

    This SI also amends the existing drafting on the length of the direction power to tie it to the end of the transition period. This will enable Ministers to make directions during the transition period to come into force at the end of the transition period, granting equivalence to the EEA for those regimes. Finally, this SI clarifies that the Treasury can impose limitations on the application of state-level equivalence decisions in granting equivalence to the EEA—for example, in response to EU conditions placed on the UK. As with the OTC SI, the Treasury has been working closely with the financial services regulators in the drafting of this instrument and has engaged with the financial services industry.

    In conclusion, the Government believe that these instruments are necessary to ensure that the UK has a coherent and functioning financial services regulatory regime at the end of this year when we leave the transition period, and I hope that the House will join me in supporting them. I commend the regulations the House.