Category: Speeches

  • Angela Rayner – 2022 Speech on Employment Agencies and Trade Unions

    Angela Rayner – 2022 Speech on Employment Agencies and Trade Unions

    The speech made by Angela Rayner, the Labour MP for Ashton-under-Lyne, in the House of Commons on 11 July 2022.

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to say from the outset that I was an agency worker and I continue to be a very proud trade unionist.

    I also want to start by welcoming the Minister to her new position. And what a fitting debate for her to start with. Over the last week, dozens of Government Members found themselves forced to work in intolerable conditions, answering to a boss who only cared for himself and not their interests, so they withdrew their labour—and they achieved some change as a result. So, they do understand the right to strike; they just seek to deny that right to others. The Minister now finds herself, much like agency workers under the regulations she proposes, filling in at short notice as a desperate last resort, with no time to prepare, in an organisation reduced to chaos.

    It just does not work. The shambles of this Government disproves their own theory. The regulations are not just utterly wrong in principle, but totally impractical. They promised no new policy while the Prime Minister clings to his desk by his fingernails, but it appears that they have made an exception in this case, ripping up decades of national consensus. The proposals are anti-business and anti-worker. They will risk public safety, rip up workers’ rights, and encourage the very worst practices. Above all, they will not prevent strikes; they will provoke them. It is hard not to believe that this is what the Government were after and their whole intention all along.

    The proposals are simply “unworkable”—not my conclusion, but the conclusion of the body that represents agency worker businesses, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation. It is not hard to see why. We already face severe labour shortages, in part caused by the decisions of this Conservative Government. There simply are not the agency staff to cover industrial action. The right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) asked the Minister about the impact. The Government have their own impact assessment, which they rushed out this afternoon. It estimates that only 2% of working hours lost to strikes would be covered. I met the REC last week, and it was very concerned that the Minister’s predecessor was simply not listening. I believe that to be the case. This proposal is anti-business. It threatens good agency worker businesses’ reputations, their relations with their staff, and, as the Government’s own impact assessment found, will cost employers thousands of pounds in familiarisation costs.

    But there is also a far more insidious side to the proposals. There is a risk to safety, both to workers themselves and the public. The proposals could see agency workers recruited on the hoof and squeezed in to cover highly skilled roles. Take the recent rail strikes, which the Minister mentioned in her opening speech. They saw skilled workers such as signallers, guards and maintenance staff walk out. In case the Minister did not know, it takes a year to train a signaller. Where are the temps who can operate 25,000 volts at control centres or signal 140 mph high-speed trains? How could the travelling public have any confidence in their safety? The public should absolutely not be put in a position where that could happen.

    No one in this House can pretend that they are ignorant on this issue. We saw the consequences when P&O Ferries replaced its experienced workforce with agency crew earlier this year. That decision led to 31 separate safety failings. Vessels were suspended and a ship literally lost power in the middle of the Irish sea due to an inexperienced crew. At the time, the Secretary of State for Transport told the House:

    “No British worker should be treated in this way… we will not allow this to happen again”.—[Official Report, 30 March 2022; Vol. 711, c. 840.]

    The Prime Minister told us that

    “we are taking legal action…against the company concerned”.—[Official Report, 23 March 2022; Vol. 711, c. 326.]

    Lloyd Russell-Moyle

    Is this not an exploiters’ charter that is deeply anti-British? This is from an anti-British party that has abandoned British workers, reducing their rights in work and allowing either agency workers from abroad to be brought in to undercut staff, as happened with P&O, or agency workers to be exploited when they are forced to cross picket lines. This is anti-British worker, is it not?

    Angela Rayner

    On the P&O workers, it seems to me like the company broke the law and the Government implied that they were going to do something about it. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how that legal action is getting on. Will the Prime Minister keep the promise that he made before he loses office? Can we assume not, judged by today, because the very practice they condemned, they now want to legalise and encourage? This is an absolute disgrace.

    Grahame Morris

    My right hon. Friend is making a terrific speech and I agree with what she is saying. She mentions P&O, and I certainly recall the Secretary of State making a statement to the House and being enraged by the actions of P&O. Why are the Government putting through the House a statutory instrument to change the terms and conditions and bring in agency workers? Why are we not having the employment Bill that was promised by the Secretary of State? Why is this being done in an underhanded fashion if it commands the support of the House and the country?

    Angela Rayner

    My hon. Friend makes an absolutely crucial point. The Government have been promising jam tomorrow for far too long, saying “employment Bill”, “employment Bill,” but guess what? No employment Bill. That is what it is like with this Government: it is all jam tomorrow and broken promises all the way.

    There is another point to make. Under section 12 of the Employment Agencies Act 1973, the Government must consult before they change any regulation. However, with all the chaos of the past couple of weeks and days, they are trying to pass a consultation from 2015 that they never even completed. They also thought that it would be acceptable to sneak out an updated impact assessment on the day of the debate. This is government on the back of a fag packet, with no time and no opportunity for scrutiny. It is typical of what we have come to expect from this Government.

    Hywel Williams

    I pointed out to the Minister that the Government are determined to repeal the Trade Union (Wales) Act. She said she would refer to her position on that later in her speech but, unsurprisingly, she failed to do so. Will the shadow Minister commit a future Labour Westminster Government to reinstate our Senedd’s ability to implement a ban on agency staff in devolved services?

    Angela Rayner

    I thank the hon. Member for his point. I promise him that the Labour party will always support Welsh devolution and support the Wales Government in what they have been trying to achieve. Actually, as we have seen with the industrial action on the railway, we have avoided that in Wales, where we have a Welsh Labour Government, because Labour Members respect devolution. This Government want to break up the Union with their petty squabbles, sleaze and scandal.

    Let me move on to the second motion. I congratulate the Minister’s new team on finding one of the lesser-known industrial regulations. It is funny that the Government are proposing to increase fourfold the damages that could be claimed under a measure that has not even been used. The Conservative party is wasting precious parliamentary time in a week when piles of legislation have had to be postponed due to there being no Minister to deal with them. This is an empty gesture or a threat. Whether the Minister and her party like it or not, everybody has the right to join a trade union in this country and to take strike action. This measure is either pointless or yet another attempt to undermine that right by the back door.

    Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)

    Does the right hon. Lady agree that it is not open for trade unionists to entertain illegal strike action in this country?

    Angela Rayner

    We have some of the strictest trade union legislation in Europe. Members have to go through strict balloting. This is the myth that Government Members do not get about trade unionists and industrial action: it is a last resort and it is often when all else has failed. It would be good if the Government got round the table and tried to deal with the disputes rather than stoke them up.

    Let us take a step back to examine what this is really about: the Government are set on breaking the strikes that they are causing themselves. We saw it with the RMT strikes last month, when the Government did everything they could to avoid the negotiating table and find the resolution to bring the strikes to an end. Instead, this is a flagrant attempt to do something by a zombie Government that are out of answers, out of options and out of time. They are about a race to the bottom on standards. They are about further eroding British workers’ rights. They are about dividing the country they claim to lead. Undermining strike action will make it harder to find a resolution, resulting in more and longer strikes to the detriment of the public, businesses and workers. This will also empower bad bosses and we will see more cases like P&O Ferries.

    We have not just determined that this is bad policy. It is also clear that it is deliberately harmful to workers and their employers, and it is an absolute fault of this Government. I should not be surprised by it. The Conservative party may be trying to get rid of their leader and may want to try and press the refresh button and get a better image, but this Government and that party have shown us time and time again who they are. This is a Government that have no answers to the cost of living crisis. This is a Government that have no answers to backlog Britain and the chaos that it is causing for ordinary working families. This is a Government that have no answers to the spiralling inflation that is on our backs. And this is a Government that have not only failed to prevent the chaos, but have indeed caused the chaos. The party opposite is in disarray and this is no longer good enough. It is the Labour party that is pro-worker and pro-business, and I urge the whole House to be the same.

  • Jane Hunt – 2022 Statement on Employment Agencies and Trade Unions

    Jane Hunt – 2022 Statement on Employment Agencies and Trade Unions

    The statement made by Jane Hunt, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, in the House of Commons on 11 July 2022.

    I beg to move,

    That the draft Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 27 June, be approved.

    Madam Deputy Speaker

    With this we shall take the following motion:

    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Liability of Trade Unions in Proceedings in Tort (Increase of Limits on Damages) Order 2022 (S.I., 2022, No. 699), dated 22 June 2022, a copy of which was laid before this House on 24 June 2022, be annulled.

    Jane Hunt

    The purpose of the first instrument is to lift the current ban on employers bringing in agency staff to help them cope with industrial action. The second instrument makes a long-overdue change to the maximum levels of damages the courts can award against trade unions that take unlawful industrial action.

    I will start by examining why the Government are making these changes. Our trade union laws are designed to support an effective and collaborative approach to resolving industrial disputes. They rightly seek to balance the interests of trade unions and their members with those of employers and the wider public. While the Government continue to support the right to strike, it should always be the last resort. The rights of some workers to strike must be balanced against the rights of the wider public to get on with their daily lives. Strikes can, and do, cause significant disruption. That is particularly the case when they take place in important public services such as transport or education. It cannot be right that trade unions can, as we saw in the case of the recent rail strikes, seek to hold the country to ransom if their demands are not met.

    Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)

    What assessment has my hon. Friend made of the availability of spare teachers, nurses and train drivers to fill the gaps during a strike?

    Jane Hunt

    I thank my right hon. Friend for his question, which I will take up a little later on in my speech.

    Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)

    I am grateful to the Minister for giving way so early on. How does she justify overturning the Trade Union (Wales) Act 2017, which bans the use of agency workers in devolved services, and therefore the intention to overturn the consequences of Welsh democracy?

    Jane Hunt

    I thank the hon. Member for his question. I will talk about that a little later; it is a reserved right.

    Some trade unions appear to be looking to create maximum disruption in a bid to stay relevant, rather than constructively seeking agreement with employers and avoiding conflict. In the light of this, the Government have reviewed the current industrial relations framework and have come to the conclusion that change is needed.

    The first change we are making is to remove the outdated blanket ban on employment businesses supplying agency workers to clients when they would be used to cover official industrial action. Employers can, of course, already hire short-term staff directly to cover industrial action, but this change would give them the ability to work with specialist employment businesses to identify and bring in staff. The change in no way restricts the ability of workers to go on strike. It will, however, give employers another tool they can use when trying to maintain the level of service they offer to the public.

    Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)

    I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Has she considered the 100,000 vacancies we currently have in the NHS that we cannot fill? The staff who work for agencies are also unionised and will not cross a picket line, so how will she fulfil this legislation?

    Jane Hunt

    I thank the hon. Lady for her question. It is, of course, their choice. It is also their choice to take up an agency position.

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

    To help the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) with her intervention, as a former teacher and a former trade union representative, I am more than happy to go back into any classroom to help out when the disastrous “not education union” is threatening to bring down schools.

    Jane Hunt

    I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and for his expertise and knowledge in the field.

    This is a permissive change that will not force employment businesses to supply agency staff to employers to cover strikes. Agency workers will still be able to decline any assignments they are offered and the right to strike is unaffected. This change is simply about giving both employers and employees more freedom and flexibility to decide what works best for them—a freedom that the current outdated regulations deny them.

    Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)

    Will the Minister give way?

    Jane Hunt

    If you do not mind, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am going to make some progress.

    I have also seen some reports that this changes will somehow put workers or the wider public at risk. This is not the case.

    Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)

    Will the Minister give way?

    Jane Hunt

    I will make some progress.

    Employers will still have to comply with broader health and safety—

    Grahame Morris rose—

    Jane Hunt

    I understand that the hon. Gentleman will be speaking later.

    Employment businesses will still need to be satisfied that the workers they supply are suitably qualified and trained.

    Alongside that change, we will increase the levels of damages that a court can award in the case of unlawful strike action. It has long been the case that employers can bring a claim for damages against a trade union that has organised unlawful strike action. The upper limits to the damages that can be awarded are set out in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, and are based on the size of the union that organises the unlawful strike action, but the damages regime has not been reviewed since 1982, so the limits are significantly out of date. As a result, the deterrent effect that Parliament intended has been significantly reduced. The Secretary of State is using powers granted to him under section 22 of the 1992 Act to increase the existing caps in line with inflation. In practical terms, that means that the maximum award of damages that could be made against a union will increase from £10,000 to £40,000 for the smallest unions and from £250,000 to £1 million for the largest.

    Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)

    Does the Minister think it is right that the cap on any fines issued by the Electoral Commission for fraud if it was found in the Conservative party is lower than what she is proposing for trade unions? Does she think it is right that fines are higher for trade unions than for preserving the democratic functioning of our country?

    Jane Hunt

    I thank the hon. Member for his question. I will, in fact, move on.

    This is a proportionate change, because we are simply increasing the amounts to the level they would be at had they been regularly updated since 1982. We are increasing the limits in line with the retail prices index, which is a well understood measure of inflation and is the same measure for other employment legislation. By increasing the limits on damages in line with inflation, we are sending a clear message to trade unions that they must comply with the law when taking industrial action.

    Strikes should only be as a last resort and should only ever be called as the result of a clear, positive and democratic decision of union members. The key point is that unions that continue to comply with our trade union law will be completely unaffected by this change. The changes we are making will ensure that our trade union and agency laws remain fit for purpose. We are giving businesses the freedom to manage their workforce and empowering workers by giving them more choices about the kind of assignments they can accept. We will continue to protect an individual’s right to strike where proper procedures are followed, while ensuring that trade unions are deterred from taking unlawful industrial action.

    I beg to move that both instruments are considered by this House.

  • Priti Patel – 2022 Statement on the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Appointment

    Priti Patel – 2022 Statement on the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Appointment

    The statement made by Priti Patel, the Home Secretary, on 11 July 2022.

    I am pleased to announce that Her Majesty the Queen has approved the appointment of Sir Mark Rowley QPM as the new Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service, following my recommendation after a highly competitive recruitment process. I also had regard to the views of the Mayor of London, as occupant of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime.

    The Metropolitan Police Service faces major challenges, having been moved to the engage phase by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS), and needs to demonstrate sustained improvements in order to regain public trust in London and nationally. It is vital that the right person is in place to take on the biggest leadership role in policing in this country. I expect the new commissioner to work with HMICFRS’s policing performance oversight group to make the necessary improvements.

    Sir Mark brings a wealth of experience with him and I am confident he will be able to exercise the strong and decisive leadership required, in order to deliver the sustained improvements that are so urgently needed. This will be a difficult time for the force as it seeks to regain the public’s trust, but I am confident that Sir Mark is the right person to meet this challenge.

    At a time when the Government are investing record sums into policing—including the recruitment of 20,000 additional police officers across England and Wales—the new commissioner will need to focus on delivering the aims we set out in our Beating Crime Plan: cutting crime, reducing the number of victims and make our capital and country safer. But, reflecting the context in which this recruitment has been made, I also want the new commissioner to focus on getting the basics right, restoring confidence in policing, and ensuring that Londoners and those who visit our capital city get the service they deserve from the Metropolitan police.

    Support for police is often based on personal experience, and the public have a set of basic expectations of the criminal justice system. They expect to be able to contact their local police, knowing their names and how to reach them. They want to see police in their neighbourhood confronting crime and making streets safer. They expect crimes to be investigated, offenders caught and punished, and when a case proceeds for justice to be swift and certain. The Beating Crime Plan outlines our approach to this, but to be successful the new commissioner must embed the aims and objectives in wider strategic plans.

    While it is the responsibility of the Mayor to hold the commissioner to account for the Metropolitan police’s transformation, I will be closely monitoring progress. I look forward to working with them both to drive real change in the force. The public deserve nothing less.

     

  • Heather Wheeler – 2022 Statement on Severance Pay for Ministers

    Heather Wheeler – 2022 Statement on Severance Pay for Ministers

    The statement made by Heather Wheeler, the Parliamentary Secretary at the Cabinet Office, in the House of Commons on 11 July 2022.

    The severance pay for Ministers is established in legislation that was passed by Parliament in 1991 and that has been used by successive Administrations over several decades. The Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Act 1991 states that where a Minister of eligible age ceases to hold office and is not reappointed to a ministerial office within three weeks, they will be entitled to a severance payment of a quarter of their ministerial annual salary. The context of this legislative provision is the reality that ministerial office can end at very short notice indeed, that reshuffles are a fundamental part of the operation of Government and, by their nature, routinely remove Ministers from office, and that, unlike in other employment contexts, there are no periods of notice, no consultations and no redundancy arrangements. Section 4 of the Act therefore makes provision for severance payments.

    This is a statutory entitlement, and it has existed and been implemented for several decades, by Governments of all stripes. Severance payments were made and accepted by outgoing Labour Ministers between the Blair and Brown years, as well as during the Administration in 2007, and by Liberal Democrat Ministers during the coalition. To ensure transparency, severance payments are published in the annual reports and accounts of Government Departments. As an example of the previous operation of this provision, the data published in 2010 indicated that severance payments made to Labour Ministers in that year amounted to £1 million. Finally, let me be clear that although this is a statutory entitlement, Ministers are able to waive such payments. This is not a matter for the Government; it is an entirely discretionary matter for the individuals concerned, and this is an approach that has been taken before.

    Fleur Anderson

    Thank you very much for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I welcome the fact that there is a Minister to respond. In the middle of a cost of living crisis, and with families struggling to make ends meet and get to the end of each month, the British public will be rightly watching this distracted Government with disgust. They are too busy infighting to provide real solutions, and to add insult to injury, thousands of pounds of people’s hard-earned taxes will be handed out to former Ministers. By my reckoning, £250,000 of severance pay will be given to Ministers who have not been reinstated. Five former Secretaries of State will receive more that £16,000 each, including the former Secretary of State for Education, who was in post for 36 hours and is due to receive close to the annual starting salary for a teaching assistant.

    This unprecedented wave of resignations and the avalanche of abdications make this a unique case. The vast majority were not sackings or forced resignations. The departures were caused entirely by a discredited Prime Minister clinging to office and a Conservative party unwilling to deal with it. Now our constituents are forced to foot the bill, paying for this Government’s chaos yet again. So I ask the Minister: what is the exact cost of these resignations to the taxpayer? Have any payments already been made to former Ministers? If so, how much and to whom? Will Ministers receive the severance in a one-off payment to their bank account? How do these payments represent good value for money to the public, and what arrangements are there to ensure that they can be waived, as she identified, and returned to the Treasury? Former Ministers need to look themselves in the mirror and decide if their constituents would wish them to accept this payment, and this whole Government must tell us if they can really defend this use of our money.

    Mrs Wheeler

    As I said earlier, and to answer the hon. Lady’s question, at this point no Ministers who resigned are entitled to receive a severance payment. We have a three-week window.

    Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)

    Does my hon. Friend agree that it is disingenuous of the Opposition to reference my alleged severance pay, as I made it clear almost immediately after resigning that I would not be taking such money?

    Mrs Wheeler

    Indeed, and I thank my right hon. Friend for confirming that she has already talked to the permanent secretary of the Cabinet Office and that she will not be receiving the payment.

  • Anne-Marie Trevelyan – 2022 Comments on the UK-Ukraine Infrastructure Summit

    Anne-Marie Trevelyan – 2022 Comments on the UK-Ukraine Infrastructure Summit

    The comments made by Anne-Marie Trevelyan, the Secretary of State for International Trade, on 11 July 2022.

    Ukrainian citizens are not only defending their country against Putin’s illegal war – they are trying to rebuild it.

    Restoring public services, unblocking disrupted supply chains and re-open life-saving evacuation routes all need urgent and concerted action. President Zelenskyy is right that these challenges must be shared by countries and businesses around the world.

    I was pleased to confirm the UK’s unflinching support to play our part in these efforts when I met Minister Kubrakov today.

    I heard how families have emerged from bomb shelters to find their properties turned to rubble. So I want to make sure that UK companies can help by providing temporary bridges and modular, prefabricated housing to help – the same type of emergency housing the UK needed after World War Two.

    Longer term, the UK will be providing expertise on the delivery of sustainable and resilient infrastructure through our brilliant UK-based businesses. And we’ll be continuing to work closely with Ukraine to offer them any help needed elsewhere, be it on energy, water, sanitation or public utilities.

    It’s particularly poignant to have held the inaugural taskforce meeting in Poland.

    Poland has been quite literally on the frontline of the efforts to support Ukraine against Putin. The government and its citizens have been extraordinarily generous in their support of Ukraine. It makes the UK even prouder than ever to call Poland a friend, and I’m pleased to have strengthened that friendship today.

  • Boris Johnson – 2022 Answers at Liaison Committee (Tax Cuts)

    Boris Johnson – 2022 Answers at Liaison Committee (Tax Cuts)

    The answers given by Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, at the Liaison Committee held in the House of Commons on 6 July 2022.

    Darren Jones: Prime Minister, how is your week going?

    The Prime Minister: Terrific, like many others.

    Q99 Darren Jones: Did Michael Gove come and tell you to resign today?

    The Prime Minister: I think I said earlier that I am here to talk about what the Government is doing. I am not going to give a running commentary on political events.

    Q100 Darren Jones: Okay. Let’s talk about what the Government is doing. You have just said today that the Government is giving the biggest tax cut in a decade, but it is a tax cut to your own tax rise, isn’t it?

    The Prime Minister: No, what it does is it gives 30 million people—by lifting the threshold, it gives them, on average, a tax cut of £330.

    Q101 Darren Jones: Against the tax rise that you previously announced. In fact, freezing tax allowances for average income tax payers means that they are going to pay £46.8 billion more over the next four years. Tax is going up, not down, isn’t it?

    The Prime Minister: It is certainly true that what we have had to do is make sure we deal with the fiscal impacts of covid. The Committee will remember that we had a colossal fall in output. We had the biggest pandemic for 100 years, and we had to look after people and businesses to the tune of £408 billion. That money doesn’t grow on trees. In order to protect our schools and hospitals, we of course have had to—

    Darren Jones: Increase the tax levels.

    The Prime Minister: We have had the health and care levy. What we are doing now is helping people with, on average, a £330 tax cut.

    Q102 Darren Jones: Prime Minister, I asked about the tax cut that was announced today, but I will move on. Let’s look at the economy before the pandemic. You mentioned the pandemic—an event that was very difficult for the Government. Before the pandemic—between 2010, when the Conservative party came into office, and the pandemic—national debt increased by £640 billion. It is now at 100% of national wealth, and you keep announcing tax cuts and spending plans at the same time. Are you just going to keep putting more and more debt on to the nation’s credit card?

    The Prime Minister: Sorry, you were just complaining about taxes going up.

    Darren Jones: I am asking about what you are doing in government, Prime Minister.

    The Prime Minister: You need to get your story straight.

    Darren Jones: My facts are from the Treasury, Prime Minister. Debt is up.

    The Prime Minister: We have to be sensible and we have to be responsible. We are making sure we manage the public finances in a prudent way, and I think that there will be scope for further tax cuts in due time.

    Q103 Darren Jones: Maybe imminently. Prime Minister, can I move on to economic growth? You said yesterday that you welcomed your new Chancellor, Nadhim Zahawi, because he would grow the economy, presumably in a way that Rishi Sunak couldn’t.

    The Prime Minister: I don’t think I said that. Anyway, go on.

    Q104 Darren Jones: We are more likely to end up in a recession this winter, aren’t we?

    The Prime Minister: As I was saying to Stephen, the economy and people are going to be under a lot of pressure, but I think we will get through it.

    Q105 Darren Jones: Do you think there will be a recession in the winter?

    The Prime Minister: I think there will be a lot of pressure caused by the price spike. We are going to do everything we can to shield people and deal with the underlying causes of inflation, whether that is through the energy markets, the labour markets or whatever. There is a lot that we can do, and I think we will emerge stronger on the other side.

    Q106 Darren Jones: You and your supporters have often said that you have got all the big calls right as Prime Minister, but actually on tax, debt, growth and pay, things have been getting worse, not better. I understand that 14 million people voted for you in 2019; you have let them down, haven’t you?

    The Prime Minister: No, I think that what they can see is a Government that gets on relentlessly with a programme of uniting and levelling up. We have the biggest investment in infrastructure for a century—£650 billion going in on all the things that Huw was talking about: roads, rail, transport of all kinds and housing. It is a colossally ambitious programme that we are still doing. At the same time, because, as you put it, Darren, we got the big calls right—

    Darren Jones: I didn’t agree with that, by the way.

    The Prime Minister: Well, I’m going to agree with it even if you don’t. We got the big calls right on covid. We came out of lockdown faster, and we got it right with the vaccine. That has put us in a position to look after people, and that is what we are doing.

    Q107 Darren Jones: Thank you. I’m going to move on to my next question. I would like to read something out to you: “When a regime has been in power too long, when it has fatally exhausted the patience of the people, and when oblivion finally beckons—I am afraid that across the world you can rely on the leaders of that regime to act solely in the interests of self-preservation, and not in the interests of the electorate.” Who authored that quote?

    The Prime Minister: You are trying me. Was it Cicero? Was it Aristotle? Let me think—was it Plato? Was it Montesquieu?

    Q108 Darren Jones: Maybe Nero. Just to break it to you, it was you, Prime Minister. Perhaps it was foresight. I will finish, because I am about to run out of time. I made a joke there, but in all sincerity—I know this must be difficult for you personally—this isn’t funny. This is not a game. People are struggling across the country. It is not brave for you to carry on doing this. I think, in my view, you are hurting the country, Prime Minister. On a very human level, surely you must know that it is in the country’s interests for you to leave now.

    The Prime Minister: I think the country is going through tough times. You are making a point about duty, right? I look at the issues this country faces, I look at the pressures that people are under and the need for Government to focus on their priorities—which is what we are doing—and I look at the biggest war in Europe for 80 years, and I cannot for the life of me see how it is responsible just to walk away from that, as I said earlier on in PMQs, particularly not when you have a mandate of the kind we won two or three years ago.

  • Boris Johnson – 2022 Answers at Liaison Committee (Fuel Duty)

    Boris Johnson – 2022 Answers at Liaison Committee (Fuel Duty)

    The answers given by Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, at the Liaison Committee held in the House of Commons on 6 July 2022.

    Huw Merriman: Turning to another area of policy that perhaps needs to change, at the moment 4% of the Exchequer’s revenues come from motoring taxes. Those will plummet to zero when we all drive electric vehicles. Are you serious about getting a new form of road pricing policy in place to fill that hole? If not, how will it be filled?

    The Prime Minister: Road pricing is something that we will eventually have to consider. I’m not attracted to it. I seem to remember that I successfully campaigned to remove the western extension of the congestion charge in London.

    Q89 Huw Merriman: I am not talking about road charging in that way; I am talking about—as we do at the moment—charging people per mile they drive, because that is what fuel duty does. You will have to replace that.

    The Prime Minister: I see what you mean—for electric vehicles as well, so that you charge a mileage.

    Q90 Huw Merriman: Yes, something along those lines.

    The Prime Minister: It is certainly the case that we will need a substitute for fuel duty.

    Huw Merriman: This comes back to my point about policy delivery, because—

    Chair: I am astonished. This is imminent. We are introducing electric cars.

    Q91 Huw Merriman: May I finish, Sir Bernard? For three months, Prime Minister, No. 10 has had a recommendation for a working body just to look at this, because something has to fill the 4%. The Treasury signed off on it, and for three months it has been sat in No. 10. One week, I am told somebody has signed it off; the next week, someone else has looked at it and stopped it, and it is stuck. My question is: the inertia inside No. 10—perhaps because of the events that we will go on to talk about—

    The Prime Minister: Nonsense.

    Q92 Huw Merriman: You say it’s nonsense, but it is a nonsense that we have been waiting three months just for someone to sign off on something that fills 4% of the Exchequer—that is the nonsense. Do you not agree that something should be done? If you can’t do it, do you think that perhaps someone else could come in and run it properly?

    The Prime Minister: This No. 10 was actually the first Government in Europe to set a timetable for moving away from internal combustion engine cars by 2030.

    Q93 Huw Merriman: I know. That is why you should follow through on the consequences of it.

    The Prime Minister: We have been moving at blistering speed. We are looking at all fiscal proposals to replace fuel duty, and I am happy to come back.

    Q94 Huw Merriman: You’re not. You are actually currently sitting on all proposals.

    The Prime Minister: I cannot believe that the Treasury is showing the slightest hesitation or reluctance to find a new way of taxing motorists.

    Q95 Huw Merriman: That is my point. The Treasury signed off on it. No. 10 then insisted on looking at it and has sat on it for three months. I think Andrew Griffith is currently the one who has now said, “No, I don’t like this.” We are therefore stuck, having thought we had cleared all the hurdles.

    The Prime Minister: I will take it up with Andrew.

    Q96 Chair: I was shadow Transport Secretary in 2000, and road charging was seen as the future then. Successive Governments have dodged it, but why is your Government dodging it when you are already abandoning the revenue stream from hydrocarbons?

    The Prime Minister: Sir Bernard, why do you think we necessarily are? We have got to find a way of filling the gap left by fuel duty.

    Q97 Chair: You have actually got a target for eliminating fossil-fuel cars, but you have not got any plan in place to replace the revenue.

    The Prime Minister: I think it highly unlikely that the Treasury will let any opportunity go to substitute revenue from motoring. What we want to do is, for the purposes of the environment, to encourage the take-up of low-carbon vehicles, and that is why the fiscal strategy is framed as it currently is. That is what we are doing for the time being.

  • Boris Johnson – 2022 Answers at Liaison Committee (Airport Delays)

    Boris Johnson – 2022 Answers at Liaison Committee (Airport Delays)

    The answers given by Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, at the Liaison Committee held in the House of Commons on 6 July 2022.

    Huw Merriman: In the six minutes I have, Prime Minister, I want to talk to you about transport policy delivery—if you’re focused. I want to talk about rail, air and also road. Starting with rail, do you have all of the policy, and legal interventions and levers, that you need to end this rail strike?

    The Prime Minister: Thanks very much, Huw. I call on the union barons and the railway companies to sort this out. I think that they should be able to do it. And I think that, yes, we probably do need a few more tools.

    Q80 Huw Merriman: Specifically, what would they be?

    The Prime Minister: I think that you could have minimum service levels; you could have ballot thresholds. And as you know, we are bringing in—I think we have already brought in—the provision for agency workers where that is necessary.

    Now, that is not going to fix problems like train drivers; you are not going to get agency workers to drive a train. But the argument that I would make is that you need to modernise.

    Q81 Huw Merriman: Let me again just focus on the levers, because I think that in the Conservative manifesto there was a line that said, “Only the Conservatives could get Brexit done”, a few more things, “and stop passengers being held hostage by the unions.” And that was with the introduction of that policy of minimum service levels. Yet that hasn’t been introduced.

    The Prime Minister: It has not, but—

    Q82 Huw Merriman: And people are being held hostage, which might be your view. Why did you not bring, with an 80-seat majority, that legislation through before the strikes started?

    The Prime Minister: That is a very good question. And—

    Q83 Huw Merriman: And the answer is?

    The Prime Minister: And the answer is: we should have done it. The trouble was that we had a lot of covid stuff to deal with and I’m afraid it got pushed to the right, and I regret—

    Q84 Huw Merriman: I thought you might say that, although there have been other things we have been able to do, notwithstanding covid. Okay, let me move on to airports. There has been massive disruption to the airports—people having their holidays cancelled at the last minute. Why wasn’t more done to stop airlines from putting more flights in place than they had the bandwidth of staff to deal with?

    The Prime Minister: Well, the airlines should not be abusing passengers in the way that they have been, and I think there should be greater protections. But I think the—

    Q85 Huw Merriman: But again, this is all, “There should be”. My question is: why hasn’t there been?

    The Prime Minister: Because basically, we were trying to get any airlines flying at all. I mean, Diana has asked a very good question about passports, where we’re putting huge numbers of people to try and speed up the delivery of passports. We had a situation in which no airlines were moving at all. And we had to put £8 billion—as you will remember, Huw—into supporting the airline industry.

    Q86 Huw Merriman: Indeed. But Gatwick, for example, has controlled the number of flights that will be able to fly out during July and August, because they can see the airlines are trying to fly at 2018 levels. They could see the number of staff coming on, so they have taken action. Other airports haven’t necessarily. The regulator—the Civil Aviation Authority—doesn’t have the power, up front, to implement these types of policies. Shouldn’t it have that power?

    The Prime Minister: I am willing to be persuaded that it should.

    Q87 Huw Merriman: Because when we put a report on that basis, the recommendation was rejected by Government on the basis that there wouldn’t be a proposal to give the regulator up-front powers to take action, including to help with compensation. Perhaps we can push him a bit more on that, if you are behind it—

    The Prime Minister: Huw, I am going to have to look into what more powers we might need to take to get the airlines to behave responsibly towards their passengers. But I think the experience of the public is pretty wretched at the moment for all sorts of reasons, and they need to do much, much better.

  • Keir Starmer – 2022 Keynote Speech on a Fresh Start for Britain

    Keir Starmer – 2022 Keynote Speech on a Fresh Start for Britain

    The speech made by Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, in Gateshead on 11 July 2022.

    Good morning, everyone.

    Three days ago, my focus was on the immediate past.

    On the importance of leading with truth and integrity. On the difficult times our country faced in lockdown. And on the fact that those who make the rules shouldn’t break the rules.

    I set out my position on that question.

    And the difference between me and the Conservative Party now desperately trying to launder its integrity. Even as it stood by an unfit Prime Minister to the bitter end.

    Today I want to put my focus where it ought to be.

    Where it will be every day between now until the next General Election. On the future. On the sort of nation that Britain can be and the sort of nation Labour wants it to be.

    Because at the moment Britain is stuck.

    Stuck with a tanking economy.

    Stuck at home unable to get a passport or a flight.

    Stuck on the phone trying to book a GP appointment.

    Our taxes are going up.

    Food and energy bills are out of control.

    And many of the public services that we rely on have simply stopped working.

    Britain deserves better than this.

    We need a fresh start.

    And I know you expect me to say this but we won’t get that, from a Conservative Party infected with the chaos virus caught from Boris Johnson.

    Only Labour can reboot our economy and end the cost-of-living crisis.

    Only Labour can revitalise our public services and re-energise our communities.

    Only Labour can unite the country and clean-up politics.

    These three tasks will define my Government.

    Because until we address them, we leave ourselves vulnerable to the shocks and crises we have endured this past, long decade.

    Yet the way I see it, the challenges we face – climate change, technology, an ageing population – are an opportunity to re-energise Britain.

    Some nation is going to lead the world in new nuclear power.

    Why not this one?

    Some nation will create the first generation of quantum computers.

    Why not us?

    Some nation will design medicines personalised to match our unique DNA.

    Why not Britain?

    This determination to move Britain forward is what drives me.

    Britain should be a confident and prosperous nation.

    But at the moment it’s full of people worried about the next bill coming through the letterbox.

    Take Zoe, from Sunderland, just down the road.

    Like many people, Zoe’s gas and electricity bills have doubled.

    She says:

    “I’m struggling to get by. I haven’t managed a full shop for food in over a month. The cost of living is scaring me and the future looks terrifying”.

    I’ve been up and down the country a lot recently – it’s one of the good things about this job.

    And let me tell you:

    I’ve heard a version of Zoe’s words from almost everyone I have met.

    Her words reflect the reality facing millions of working people in Britain right now.

    People like my family.

    I didn’t come from a privileged background.

    My start in life was completely ordinary.

    Dad was a tool-maker. Mum was a nurse. Our house was a pebble-dashed semi and we had a Ford Cortina – this was the 1970s!

    But I owe everything – all my values – to my upbringing.

    My work ethic and dedication to public service.

    But the real gift my parents gave me was the opportunity to get on.

    And that is why I came into politics.

    I have been lucky enough to take a journey through my life.

    From a working-class family to head of the Crown Prosecution Service.

    So when I say I don’t want anyone in this country held back by their circumstances – you know it is not just words.

    It’s why – for me – the state of our economy is personal.

    Because when people like Zoe are so scared of the future.

    When our economy is so wracked by low growth and insecurity – then working people get stuck. And that means Britain gets stuck.

    The most important goal of my Labour government will be to grow the economy.

    And we will not accept growth that doesn’t improve people’s lives.

    An economy can grow and leave some of its people behind. But a nation cannot grow in that way.

    Not long ago I was in Burnley and was left in no doubt by the people I met there.

    They all had great ambitions, for themselves and their town.

    But they don’t have a government that shares that ambition.

    Boosterism and wishful thinking are not the same as ambition.

    If you don’t have a plan to make your hopes real, all you are selling is an illusion.

    The other thing my background gives me is impatience.

    If you are born without privilege, you don’t have time for messing around.

    You don’t walk around problems without fixing them.

    Or surrender to the instincts of organisations that look to preserve themselves rather than modernise.

    So, believe it or not, I’m not that interested in the political game.

    The daily saga of who is up and who is down in Westminster. No, not even this week or last.

    I’m impatient to get things done.

    I can see what is wrong with Britain and I want to fix it.

    It’s what I have done with our own party.

    When I took on this job in April 2020, I knew we had a big task before us.

    We had to change our party and prepare for power all in one go.

    Not change for change’s sake, but change with a purpose: to remake a Labour Party that understands its purpose is service, not self-indulgence. Country first, party second.

    That’s why we had to root out the antisemitism which had infected our party.

    That’s why we had to show our support for NATO is non-negotiable.

    Show that we want business to thrive and prosper and shed policies that won’t work.

    The Labour party was stuck. Stuck in opposition. Stuck licking its wounds after four painful defeats.

    Of course, we still have more to do, but now Labour is moving forward again.

    That is what I will do for Britain – and I will do it with a plan to tackle the three biggest issues we face.

    1. Rebooting our economy and ending the cost of living crisis

    2. Revitalising our public services and re-energising our communities

    3. Uniting the country and cleaning-up politics.

    Let me start with the economy.

    I’ve explained why this is personal.

    How my mission in politics cannot be achieved unless we get our economy growing again.

    So let me tell you now: Labour will fight the next election on economic growth.

    The first line of the first page of our offer will be about wealth creation.

    We will show how a Labour economy based on partnership and contribution can make Britain richer.

    And we won’t retreat to a comfort zone on public services and hope the focus of the country shifts.

    Many of our plans are already in place.

    Our strategy to buy, make and sell more in Britain.

    Our five-point plan to reform the Northern Ireland protocol and make Brexit work.

    Our Climate Investment Pledge that invests £28bn a year to help us win the race for the next generation of jobs.

    Gordon Brown is looking at new forms of economic devolution for us, so that every city, every town, every place has the chance they deserve to contribute to our economy.

    David Blunkett is leading a skills commission made up of entrepreneurs, business leaders, and policy experts.

    Whilst Lord Jim O’Neil is looking at how we can make Britain the best country in the world to start a new business.

    And never forget it was Labour who pushed so hard for a windfall tax on energy companies to help those struggling with their bills.

    In the weeks ahead, I will say more about how an economy based on partnership and contribution works, and how it can grow us out of the cost-of-living crisis.

    But let me say here why I think only Labour can deliver for Britain – whoever emerges from the chaotic circus now playing out in Westminster.

    Because the task as I see it, is to create an economy that is strong, secure, and inclusive.

    One that is resilient to the shocks of an uncertain world – which doesn’t just create jobs, but good, well-paid secure jobs.

    And growth that does not harm society or peoples’ lives or trash the public finances.

    I cannot believe what we are hearing from the candidates to be the next Tory leader.

    The Tory leadership race hasn’t even officially begun yet but the arms race of fantasy economics is well underway.

    Over the weekend, the contenders have made more than £200 billion worth of unfunded spending commitments. Let that sink in.

    That’s more than the annual budget of the NHS, splurged onto the pages of the Sunday papers, without a word on how it’ll be paid for.

    And on taxes, the vast majority of them served in Boris Johnson’s government.

    They went out every day for months and years to defend his behaviour.

    They backed every one of his 15 tax rises.

    They’re behaving like they’ve just arrived from the moon.

    They nodded along and trooped through the voting lobbies to support them.

    Now, it turns out they were opposed to them all along. The hypocrisy is nauseating.

    When I say decency and honesty matter, that includes being honest about how we fund every single thing we promise.

    It’s why when I say we have a plan for investing in education, I also say it’ll be funded by closing the VAT loophole for private schools.

    Or when I say we need to sort out mental health treatment in this country, I also tell you that we’ll do it by closing tax loopholes used by private equity.

    Politics means tough decisions.

    It means being frank with the public.

    It doesn’t mean tossing out tens of billions of unfunded spending commitments just to play to the gallery of Tory MPs and members.

    But it also means being frank with your own party.

    I don’t believe you can achieve a strong economy with just a tired formula of deregulation and tax cuts.

    But nor do I believe you can achieve it if all you have is redistribution and public sector investment.

    Most of all, I don’t think you can achieve it with the false choice running through the Government’s levelling up agenda – of north versus south, city versus town. That’s not partnership.

    We need every community to make a contribution to growing national prosperity.

    We can’t have people like Zoe stuck.

    That is what the Conservative Party doesn’t understand about the modern economy.

    They don’t believe in partnership. They don’t believe you need state and market, business and worker, the everyday economy and the technological frontier – all working together for a strong, secure and inclusive economy.

    But we can’t do that without first-rate public services.

    That’s the second big challenge where only Labour is the answer.

    Every Labour government inherits the same task from the Tories – to revitalise neglected public services.

    It will fall to us to do the same again – and we will.

    It is not just a social justice issue, it speaks directly to the type of economy we want to build.

    We saw that in the pandemic.

    Close public services like childcare, schools, GP surgeries and look at the impact on productivity.

    When we push forward with our plans to make sure everyone can access mental health treatment within one month, when we recruit 8,500 mental health professionals, fully-funded by closing a tax loophole on private equity – this is an investment in the economic strength of the country as well as the health and wellbeing of our communities.

    Or to take another example, hundreds of thousands of people over 50 have left the labour market since the pandemic.

    A million more people are out of work on benefits.

    The biggest drop in the employment rate of the major G7 economies.

    And as Jonathan Ashworth (Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary) is setting out today, we will reform employment support to help people get back into work.

    But, reforming public services can’t just be a question of investment.

    We will also need to think imaginatively – about how technology is expanding the range of what is possible to do, about how we can put people in control of more personalised and responsive services.

    This means we have to think differently about the purpose of each of our public services.

    In health it means finally making good on the promise to prevent illness, not just cure it when it happens.

    In education it means not just imparting knowledge, but developing the creativity, resilience, curiosity, and problem-solving abilities of every young person.

    In social care it means giving people a better quality of life and paying for it in a way that is genuinely fair.

    And in tackling crime, it means developing neighbourhood crime hubs that can prevent crime and build community cohesion rather than reacting when things go wrong.

    Each of these would mean big strategic changes to the way our public services work.

    And allow more people to fulfil their ambitions free from illness or insecurity.

    This leads me to the third defining task of my Government.

    Re-energising communities, uniting the country, and cleaning up politics.

    A Labour government will bring people back together.

    I am tired of our divisive politics. We have a government with no understanding of how to grow the economy or reform our public services.

    So it creates division to set us against one another and distract from its failures.

    Some people say to me “this is politics now”. Division is how you win.

    Let me be clear: I want no part in that.

    If this is what politics has become, then we will change politics.

    We’ve already set out plans to clean up Westminster.

    Under Labour there won’t be any MPs lobbying for their friends, but a Labour Britain will be one where we celebrate who we are.

    One which embraces both our differences and what we have in common.

    There will always be issues that divide us, points of disagreement, there is nothing wrong with that, that’s democracy.

    But even in a robust democracy, it is vital we settle those disputes in a civilised way, that we play by the rules.

    That’s the reason I took the action I did when faced with those allegations in Durham.

    I wanted to show that politicians will risk their careers on matters of principle.

    That we are not, as so many people in this country believe, only in it for ourselves.

    And that I am committed to the values which earn Britain respect all around the world – fair-play, respect for difference, the rule of law.

    Labour will end the era of divisive politics and clean-up Westminster.

    And show we are the self-confident, forward-looking, optimistic United Kingdom, I know we can be.

    I don’t think it’s too hard to describe what people want from politics.

    The mission I’ve set out today certainly isn’t complicated.

    I don’t want anyone in this country to be held back by their circumstances.

    And I want to get Britain moving again, so we can once more face the future with confidence.

    I have talked today about why that mission is personal to me.

    And I have talked previously about the moment I knew I needed to leave the law and go into politics.

    About the daily injustices I saw as Director of Public Prosecutions.

    Important examples are etched on my mind, for example, when we failed to deliver justice for Jane, the daughter of John and Penny Clough.

    Over the last few weeks, I have thought a lot about that.

    Thought about the nature of rules and how you change them.

    But what I thought back then, is what I still think now.

    There is no substitute for politics when it comes to tackling injustice and changing this country, and change is what my Labour Party will offer at the next General Election.

    We will give Britain the fresh start it needs – we will reboot our economy, re-energise our communities, revitalise our public services, unite the country, clean-up politics, and end the cost-of-living crisis.

    Thank you.

  • Boris Johnson – 2022 Answers at Liaison Committee (Meeting with Alexander Lebedev)

    Boris Johnson – 2022 Answers at Liaison Committee (Meeting with Alexander Lebedev)

    The answers given by Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, at the Liaison Committee held in the House of Commons on 6 July 2022.

    Dame Diana Johnson: My final question. Could you confirm—I would appreciate a yes or a no—that you met former KGB officer Alexander Lebedev without officials when you were Foreign Secretary on 28 April 2018?

    The Prime Minister: I would have to check.

    Q42 Dame Diana Johnson: Are you having a lapse of memory again?

    The Prime Minister: No. You are asking me a very specific question about a very specific date. I would have to get back to you. I certainly have met the gentleman in question—

    Q43 Dame Diana Johnson: Without officials?

    The Prime Minister: He was the proprietor of the London Evening Standard when I was Mayor of London. I am certainly not going to deny having met Alexander Lebedev. I certainly have. As far as I remember, he used to own the London Evening Standard.

    Q44 Dame Diana Johnson: Yes, but with officials when you were Foreign Secretary. Did you meet him with officials or without?

    The Prime Minister: Look, I have certainly met him without officials. As I say, he is a proprietor of a newspaper.

    Q45 Chair: Perhaps you could write to us with a specific answer to that very specific question.

    The Prime Minister: Very happy to.

    Q46 Dame Meg Hillier: Can I just follow that up, Prime Minister? You said you met him without officials. Presumably that was when you were Mayor of London. When you were Foreign Secretary, did you meet Alexander Lebedev without officials?

    The Prime Minister: I think I probably did, but—

    Q47 Dame Meg Hillier: Probably did?

    The Prime Minister: As I say, I would need to check.

    Q48 Dame Meg Hillier: You are used to regularly meeting him? “Probably” because you meet him often or “probably” because you can’t remember?

    The Prime Minister: I have met him on a very few occasions—

    Q49 Dame Meg Hillier: As Foreign Secretary?

    The Prime Minister: On the occasion you mention, if that was when I was Foreign Secretary, then yes.

    Q50 Dame Meg Hillier: Without officials?

    The Prime Minister: Yes. That makes sense, yes.

    Q51 Dame Meg Hillier: Did you report to your officials that you had met him?

    The Prime Minister: I think I did mention it, yes.

    Q52 Chair: And where did you meet him?

    The Prime Minister: I met him in Italy, as it happens, but I really, you know—

    Chair: Perhaps you will write to us.

    Dame Meg Hillier: Was it a personal engagement?

    Chair: We will move on.