UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2020

  • Richard Thomson – 2020 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Richard Thomson, the SNP MP for Gordon, in the House of Commons on 20 January 2020.

    It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) and to be called to make my maiden speech on behalf of my constituents as the newly elected Member of Parliament for Gordon.

    Before I get under way, I draw Members’ attention to the fact that I am a member of the Aberdeen city region deal joint committee, and I confirm that I have supplied this information in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests because it is relevant to some points I wish to make towards the end of my speech.

    It is a particular privilege to make my first parliamentary contribution as my party’s spokesperson on business and industry. Before I come to the substance of the debate, however, I take this opportunity to acknowledge the service of my predecessor, Mr Colin Clark. I first ​got to know Colin when we were both councillors in Aberdeenshire. I had particular reason to get to know him because his election as a councillor for Inverurie deprived me, as the council leader, of a working majority. However, whether in our dealings on Aberdeenshire Council, in my dealings with him when he was a Member or, subsequently, in our dealings throughout the campaign, I have always found Colin to be a very courteous and generous opponent. I wish Colin, his family and the team of staff who worked alongside him all the very best for the future.

    Like many colleagues, it has been a privilege for me to have served in local government, and particularly to have had responsibility, as council leader, for all the local government area of Aberdeenshire. I will resist the temptation to say that I now represent the finest part of that historic county, not least because I have no wish to be assailed quite yet by indignant parliamentary neighbours, on whichever side of the Chamber they happen to sit.

    Nevertheless, Gordon is a constituency of real contrasts. Geographically, despite its northern location, it sits right on the cusp of highland and lowland Scotland. It is a mix of city and country, upland and lowland, urban and rural. Starting in the north-west, taking in the historic town of Huntly and the villages and landscapes of Strathbogie and Strathdon, it heads eastwards into the fertile agricultural lands of the Garioch and Formartine, where towns such as Insch, Inverurie, Ellon and Oldmeldrum sit close to rapidly expanding settlements like Kintore and Balmedie. Finally, it sweeps down to the banks of the River Don, where the historic papermaking industry continues to this day—in fact, it is where much of the paper we use here in the House of Commons still comes from—and then into the northern suburbs of the great city of Aberdeen, taking in Dyce, Bucksburn, Danestone and Bridge of Don itself.

    Many of my constituents still find work in the traditional areas of agriculture and food production. Many, of course, work offshore either in the oil and gas sector or in the burgeoning renewables sector. In Gordon, we brew, we distil and we grow. Through the offshore energy sector and the north-east’s world-leading universities, we extract, we harness, we innovate and we power. The strength of the private sector is complemented by the role of the public sector and those who teach, who care, who make, who mend and who help others to live the best lives they possibly can, whatever their circumstances.

    Gordon is a constituency that not only makes things; it makes people. It is an area where people are hard-working, fair-minded and community-spirited. It is a welcoming place that embraces those who come to make their lives there, no matter where in the world they come from and no matter what their circumstances. It is a place that earns its prosperity, even if sadly still too few have the opportunity to participate in it. In short, we are a region rich in human and natural capital, and in the end markets for what we produce, we are an area that has always looked outwards to Europe and the world, and is determined to continue doing so.

    My constituency is one that emphatically did not vote to “Get Brexit Done”—quite the reverse. People there are pragmatic and well understand the benefits EU membership has brought us, as well as the pitfalls of trying to leave under a Government seemingly without a clear idea of the terms on which they would like that to happen. Although my constituents can take political ​uncertainty in their stride, they understand well the need to progress on the basis of a realistic consideration of the problems that might occur. Watching supporters of the Government swaggering into television interviews and arguing about who is going to have the biggest set of bongs in the negotiations to come with our European partners leaves them, as it does our European partners, pretty well cold. This House, in its deliberations to come, would do well to heed the wise words of the Danish Finance Minister Kristian Jensen, when he observed that

    “There are two kinds of European Nations—there are small nations, and there are countries that have not yet realised that they are small nations.”

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a small nation. I, like my colleagues, hope to see another one emerge on to the international stage in the not-too-distant future. When you understand, as we do, that it is possible to enhance your national sovereignty by sharing it and that it is possible to share it without anyone else getting it, you see that it is little wonder that EU membership has not ever seemed to provoke the kind of existential crisis in Scotland that it has elsewhere in the UK.

    This is, of course, a debate on the economy and, in drawing my remarks to a close, I wish to highlight three challenges pertinent to my constituents in particular. The first relates to the energy transition. Of course North sea oil and gas will continue to meet our energy needs and provide employment for some time to come. However, we need to be preparing to enact a just transition to the low-carbon industries of the future, harnessing fully the skills and knowledge of our present industries. The best way to start would be to ring-fence the corporation tax receipts from that industry and invest the proceeds with that objective in mind.

    The second relates to diversifying the local economy. We need to be growing other areas of our economy in the north-east too, whether that is in digital, life sciences, food and drink or tourism. This is something on which there is complete consensus throughout the north-east, so it remains a disappointment to me that when it comes to the Aberdeen city region deal and the subsequent side deal, the Scottish Government are still out-funding the UK Government’s contribution by a factor of 2:1. The Scottish Government are also still doing too much of the heavy lifting on broadband, given that responsibility is still in the purview of Westminster. I believe it is time the UK Government started to take their responsibilities for that seriously, while they still have them.

    The final challenge relates to alignment with the single market. We can well see the contradiction between a Prime Minister who assures our colleagues in Northern Ireland that there will be no divergence between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, and a Chancellor who says that there will be changes. There is not so much as a chlorinated chicken whiff of a trade deal coming along that will compensate for the trade deals we are about to leave behind. We must remain in alignment with the single market and not allow the Prime Minister another chance to crash out, leaving others to pick up the pieces of that failure.

    If the election brings us two comforts, they are these: first, the Prime Minister is now the master of his own destiny and so is responsible for and in charge of everything that now follows, with the resulting mess ​being his and his alone. Secondly, the people of Scotland have chosen my party to represent them in this place to defend their interests. That is a task I look forward with relish to carrying out, along with my colleagues.

  • Jack Brereton – 2020 Speech on the Economy and Jobs

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jack Brereton, the Conservative MP for Stoke-on-Trent South, in the House of Commons on 20 January 2020.

    I congratulate hon. Members, especially my new constituency neighbours, on all the fantastic maiden speeches we ​have heard throughout the debates on Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech—I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) later tonight.

    The economy and jobs are critical to rebalancing our national prosperity, and nowhere more so than in Stoke-on-Trent. We now have more people in work but, on average, wage levels continue to be among the lowest in the country. If we are to level up the opportunities, we must ensure that people in the midlands and the north have the same life chances as people everywhere else. A critical part of that is ensuring that people have the skills and the ability to access good jobs.

    Improving educational standards is key for the future of Stoke-on-Trent, and we have seen significant and consistent improvements thanks to the hard work of our local teachers, with more children achieving their best. However, there is still more to do. At key stage 4, the city’s outcomes are currently far too low. It pains me to say that little more than half of Stoke-on-Trent’s pupils achieve grades 9 to 4 in English and maths at GCSE, compared with nearly two thirds of pupils nationally.

    In the past we have fallen victim to poor planning in accommodating demographic growth in our local secondary schools. In September, only 82% of children in Stoke-on-Trent’s got their first preference for secondary school, compared with 92% in the rest of Staffordshire and 90% in Cheshire.

    I thank and pay tribute to all our local heads who have done their absolute best and gone beyond what should be expected to accommodate additional pupils this year. Every one of the city’s 14 secondary schools is full, with 11 oversubscribed, putting huge pressure on the education system. Children are forced to travel miles to find a place, with many having no choice but to accept inadequate standards.

    I am delighted to support plans for a new free school, the Florence MacWilliams Academy, on part of the former Longton High School site. The school will boost excellence and choice for local parents. I am pleased the Conservative-led city council will be working with Educo to take forward this fantastic initiative. A new free school will boost standards in our schools, create more good and outstanding places and equip our young people with the skills to be the workforce of the future.

    Another critical part of addressing the economic imbalance will be tackling the decline of our high streets. The sight of boarded-up, derelict properties has become all too common for many towns in the midlands and the north. Once thriving economic hubs, these centres are now struggling to compete with the growth of online retail, as we heard from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey). We must face the reality that our town centres have always evolved to stay relevant. They must transition to exciting new uses that provide attractive spaces for new and expanding businesses.

    Towns and cities like Stoke-on-Trent will need help to achieve that. It remains disappointing that Fenton and Longton, the historic market towns that make up my constituency, are not included in the town deals funding. ​Neither has received future high streets funding, which could have achieved so much, particularly as it would tie in with our plans under the transforming cities fund to revolutionise public transport provision in the city.

    Towns and cities like Stoke-on-Trent, where property prices are among the lowest in the country, face major viability challenges in converting properties and encouraging redevelopment. Investment is necessary, and I know from our discussions that the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government is well aware of the importance of investing in our towns that make up Stoke-on-Trent.

    I am pleased that progress continues on the Longton heritage action zone and that the historic Longton town hall, which the Labour party threatened to demolish in the 1980s, is once again in civic use as a new local centre. Our industrial heritage must be a key asset in Stoke-on-Trent’s future, attracting businesses and visitors alike who value the authentic Potteries townscapes that local residents so rightly value.

    There also needs to be greater flexibility in planning use categories to make it easier to convert former retail properties. Today’s high streets need to be responsive to changing local economic demands. We must also seriously consider removing taxes that disincentivise the redevelopment of our town centres. Creating business rate relief zones that cover town centres is an excellent way of supporting innovation and viability, which will breathe new life into our communities.

    We must also continue to build on those schemes that have worked well. I hope the Government will extend the Ceramic Valley enterprise zone, which has helped to transform once derelict brownfield sites across Stoke-on-Trent, creating thousands of jobs and supporting economic growth. We want to see business rates relief continue in the zone, with the zone expanded to include additional brownfield sites in the south of the city.

    This is an exciting time for our country and for Stoke-on-Trent. The Government have a convincing majority to deliver the change that people in Stoke-on-Trent, and towns and cities like it, want to see. This should truly be about levelling up communities that, for decades, felt left behind and taken for granted by Labour. It means ensuring excellent educational opportunities in every community, alongside supporting industry and innovation to grow economic prosperity in our towns so that everyone can succeed.

  • Andrew Griffith – 2020 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Andrew Griffith, the Conservative MP for Arundel and South Downs, in the House of Commons on 20 January 2020.

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate on the economy and employment, which is a subject on which I hope to contribute to the House from my personal experience. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter). I compliment her on her excellent speech and on her passion.

    Let me start by acknowledging what a privilege it is to represent the residents of Arundel and South Downs. I pledge to serve them to the very best of my ability. My predecessor, Nick Herbert, made a rich and diverse contribution, leading Business for Sterling, serving as a Minister of State and devoting his many energies and talents to the global fight against tuberculosis in his 14-year tenure. Now, as chairman of the Countryside Alliance, Nick has a somewhat enlarged number of constituents to look after, and we look forward to his continuing to make his presence felt vicariously in this House.​

    Even within this Chamber, which sees more than its fair share of partisanship, the claim of Arundel and South Downs to be one of the most beautiful constituencies in the UK must rank highly. It comprises six historic market towns, together with their many surrounding villages. The common thread is the natural geography of West Sussex, with the South Downs providing a chalky spine and clay flanks facing towards London to the north and, to the south, the Greensand hills stretching down to the coast. This has provided the ideal conditions for cultivating grapes for 2,000 years, and the constituency is the epicentre of English sparkling wine production, with Nutborne near Pulborough, Nyetimber in West Chiltington and Upperton in Tillington just some of the successful local businesses producing world-class products. My constituency also has a farmed landscape that is particularly associated with the grazing of sheep, and it would be remiss of me if I did not say that I will be seeking to protect my local farmers’ access to markets, and to achieve a level playing field on quality and welfare standards.

    The constituency’s eponymous South Downs national park contains a number of unique habitats that allow endangered species to thrive, including the rare Duke of Burgundy butterfly. It is orange in colour and found predominantly in the south of England, but its numbers have been reduced sharply in recent times. It would be uncharitable, however, to draw an analogy with one of the Opposition parties, currently being led by the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey).

    The South Downs national park is, by some considerable margin, the nearest national park to the House, and I extend to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, an invitation to visit. Should you make the journey, you will be rewarded by its natural beauty by day and, should you stay after sunset, you will witness a blanket of stars and galaxies, reflecting the area’s status as one of the UK’s dark sky reserves. Light pollution is a global and growing issue. It is estimated that one third of the world’s population, including most of us in Europe, have already lost the ability to see our own milky way galaxy, blinding ourselves to the ability to see our earth in the broader context of the universe. There are many benefits to reducing light pollution, and I hope that this House will be an effective platform for doing that.

    Of course, the best way to solve a problem is not to create it in the first place. My constituents have real concerns about the volume and type of housing development that is being proposed. As we speak, I estimate that fully 10% of the southern part of my constituency lies under water. Much of this area is natural floodplain, but an unnatural act is the ambition to build new homes in the hundreds—collectively in the thousands—on this land, which also lacks much of the necessary infrastructure. I shall return to this another day. However, part of the solution, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has rightly addressed, must be to level up elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

    The area has been inhabited since neolithic times. Indeed, the history of England is etched on to the very landscape. My constituency contains part of all three ancient administrative units of West Sussex: Arundel, ​Bramber and Chichester. Sitting between Normandy and London, they were of great strategic importance in the years following the 1066 conquest. Their graces, the Dukes of Norfolk, whose seat is at Arundel, have been central to our nation’s history since the 14th century and provided the House with many of my predecessors, while the abolitionist William Wilberforce once sat for the old Bramber division.

    In the 20th century, local airfields made a substantial contribution to the battle of Britain, while in the run-up to D-day, British and allied troops camped there in their hundreds of thousands awaiting the signal to go. We continue to punch above our weight today as the location of Wilton Park, the influential forum for discussion that welcomes leaders of more than 100 nationalities a year.

    There is a great deal to be commended in the Gracious Speech. Businesses have welcomed the ambitious commitment to gigabit broadband and 5G coverage, something I have long campaigned for. Britain should lead, not lag behind, other OECD countries on this. Alongside broadband, we need the roads and railways to reduce friction on trade, which is why investment in improving the A27 is welcome and will secure growth and employment for my constituents.

    I can also report that much joy has been provoked in the small market towns of West Sussex by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s commitment to a review of business rates. Having been a finance director, I share his view on the importance of balancing the nation’s budget, but I hope he can have sympathy with the argument that it is better and fairer to tax the fruits of the harvest than the soil it is grown in.

    I shall be supporting the Government today—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] On the subject of the economy and employment, I could not put it better than the words of Mrs Thatcher’s 1979 manifesto: the policy of this Government should be to

    “restore incentives so that hard work pays, success is rewarded and genuine new jobs are created in an expanding economy.”

  • Beth Winter – 2020 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Beth Winter, the Labour MP for Cynon Valley, in the House of Commons on 20 January 2020.

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me, as the newly elected Member of Parliament for Cynon Valley, the opportunity to make my maiden speech today.

    Cynon Valley is an old south Wales mining community with a history of radical, progressive, socialist politics, having had MPs such as Henry Richard, a campaigner for peace and against slavery, and Keir Hardie, a founder of the Labour party who campaigned for votes for women and for a socialist society. My predecessor, Ann Clwyd, like me, followed in that tradition. Ann’s book “Rebel with a Cause” is very much a portrait of a woman politician who kept to her principles, whether you agreed with her or not. She was sacked twice from the shadow Cabinet, once for opposing further spending on nuclear weapons, and again in 1995 for observing, without the Speaker’s permission, the Turkish attacks on the Kurds. She is known for her internationalism, and for her campaigning on issues of human rights.

    Ann will also be famously remembered for helping to save the last deep pit in Cynon Valley by going down the mine to take part in the miners’ sit-in. The following year, Tower colliery was taken over by the miners, and was run successfully for many years. It too has now closed. Approval has recently been given for the opening of a zip wire park on the site of the old colliery, which is positive.

    Ann is, like myself, a Welsh speaker—although, Ann, if you are listening to this, mae’ch Cymraeg chi llawer yn well na Nghymraeg i: her Welsh is far better than ​mine! In 1991, she had the honour of being admitted to the Gorsedd of Bards at the National Eisteddfod, and in 2004 she was made a Privy Counsellor.

    Cynon Valley is an area of great natural beauty, with its mountains, its wide valley floor, its rivers and its trees. It is known as the queen of the valleys, much to the irritation of some of our neighbours. It has so many good attributes, such as its parks, leisure facilities and strong communities. I was born in the valley and still live there with my family, so I am very much a part of the community, and Cynon Valley is very much a part of me.

    We have pride in our history, and 1984, when Ann first entered Parliament, is a year that is well remembered in Cynon. It was the year of the miners’ strike. We saw a great change during and following those Thatcher years, and for the last four decades the area has suffered the consequences of deindustrialisation. Sadly, that left us with an economy with relatively high unemployment, low wages, part-time working and zero-hours contracts. In the last 10 years, communities like Cynon Valley have borne the brunt of Tory austerity: we know that such policies hit the poorest the hardest. Austerity has led to my local authority, Rhondda Cynon Taff, losing £90 million of funding in the last 10 years. That means not just a squeeze on public services but job losses—all of which has had a knock-on effect on local businesses, and on the quality of people’s lives.

    On top of that, we have the cruel effects of benefit cuts and changes, notably universal credit and the bedroom tax. It is a disgrace that in this day and age people in Britain have to use food banks. At the same time as poorer communities suffer from the effects of austerity, the rich have grown richer, with the gap between rich and poor continuing to grow. That cannot be right.

    I look around me in this House and I see wealth and privilege, with people making decisions that affect my constituents when they have no idea about the pattern of our daily lives. It is a world away from my home and my community, and I must admit that I struggle with it. While I am here worrying about getting the parliamentary rules and procedures right, there are people in my constituency worrying about how to pay the rent, feed the children and heat their homes. There is a disconnect between the arcane procedures of Parliament and the priorities of my constituents. This needs to change.

    I have to remind myself why I stood for Parliament. I stood for Parliament because I want to see society transformed. I have always sought to combat inequality and injustice, taking a grassroots, bottom-up approach that empowers and gives voice to local people and communities, by doing community development work, working with homeless people, volunteering in a food bank and researching the effects of social exclusion on older people for my doctorate. I want a society that puts people before profits, a society that is fair, equal and just and that gives hope, where my parents can grow old with dignity and care, and where my children can look forward to a life free from wars and poverty, and free from the threat to our climate and our planet.

    In spite of all the difficulties and problems, we are fighting back. We have a community and people second to none in Cynon Valley, and I am so honoured to have the opportunity to represent them here. I had tremendous support from local people during my election campaign and I want to thank them all, with a special word of ​thanks for Jean Fitzgerald, who sadly died suddenly earlier this month. She had been a great support to Ann over many years and became a good friend to me. Local people have shown great resilience and determination over the years, working to defend local services, and we have a forward-looking Labour local authority, which despite austerity policies has fought to protect frontline services and which is engaged in the delivery of several significant infrastructure projects, proactively working to bring new jobs to the area.

    Devolution has given Wales opportunities to do things differently, including our commitment to developing a social partnership approach putting trade unions and the fair work agenda right at the heart of the Welsh Government’s programme to ensure greater equality for Welsh workers, as well as the Welsh Government’s commitment to developing a foundational economy, which in parts of Wales is the economy. But to maintain and develop our plans, we need adequate funding from Westminster. In fact, we are getting less money now than we were 10 years ago and there are grave concerns about the impact that Brexit will have on our economy. We need assurance that the proposed shared prosperity fund to replace EU funding delivers “not a penny less, not a power lost” in Wales.

    We in Wales have the potential to take a lead to change things for the better, as long as we build on our campaigning traditions and our radical and socialist heritage. Campaigning is in my blood, from marching as a child in Cynon Valley in support of the miners in 1984 to marching against austerity and climate change with my family and organising against the casualisation of the workforce as a trade union officer. I am determined to contribute to this continued fightback against the inequalities in our society, and to work even harder for a fair distribution of wealth, for a green industrial revolution creating jobs for the future, and for our young people to have opportunities to reach their full potential. I will end with a quote from one of my predecessors, Keir Hardie, who said:

    “We can do with state interference if the homes of the people can be improved or work be given to the unemployed, or bread to the hungry or hope to the uncared for poor…State interference has assisted wealth, monopoly and privilege long enough”.

  • Edward Leigh – 2020 Speech on the Economy and Jobs

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sir Edward Leigh, the Conservative MP for Gainsborough, in the House of Commons on 20 January 2020.

    I assure the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) that no Government Member wants to degrade the rights or the dignity of working people—quite the opposite. We are not interested in turning us into some bargain-basement economy by lowering standards.

    This Parliament seems to have a much calmer atmosphere. We seem to have passed through a hurricane, and we now have a solid majority. However, some would claim that we are simply in the eye of the storm and that another hurricane will hit us over a so-called hard Brexit and a failure to achieve a free trade deal. I doubt whether the free trade deal will be so difficult to achieve. After all, we start with exactly the same rules, regulations, tariffs and everything. If there is good will on both sides, as there certainly is on ours, I see no difficulty in achieving the free trade deal.

    Much has been made of what the Food and Drink Federation said this week, but I see no difficulty there. Are we going to downgrade the Lincolnshire sausage compared with the Bavarian sausage? Are we going to produce low-grade orange juice? Of course not—we will keep our standards. I look at the Chancellor when I say this: there is use in the Government making it absolutely clear, when it comes to environmental standards, working rights and ensuring that we have good-quality products, that we are absolutely top-notch in the world and that we will not downgrade any of our standards. What would be absolutely intolerable is to sign up to a deal that says that for ever more, we have to follow rules made by another jurisdiction. That would be absurd, which is why I am opposed to remaining permanently in some kind of single market or customs union. I know that the Chancellor will be absolutely robust in resisting that, but the free trade deal can and will be achieved, because we are a party of free trade. We are open to the world—that is what we believe in. I am not a believer in a hard Brexit or a soft Brexit; I believe in a Brexit that is good for business—a business Brexit—and I am sure that the Chancellor does, too.

    How will we increase our competitiveness in Europe and the world as Brexit takes place, if we are to maintain these excellent standards? I suggest, by way of a Budget submission to the Chancellor, who is sitting on the Front Bench, that we could learn lessons from the past. I think I have now sat through over 40 Budgets in this Chamber, and most have been frankly unimpressive. They have looked to the next day’s headlines in spending a bit more money here and there. The one Budget that really impressed me was Nigel Lawson’s Budget in 1988, because he had a vision. It was a vision of a lower-tax economy from a Chancellor who was determined to ​strip away the mass of allowances and ensure that we no longer had the longest tax code in the world after India. I remember when the Chancellor arrived as a fresh-faced young Back Bencher in 2010, a man who had been a success in the City of London, and I saw him as a Thatcherite. I want him to remember those early days and at the next Budget to take a leaf out of Nigel Lawson’s Budget.

    Nigel Lawson said, “If you reward enterprise, you get more of it”. We are a Conservative Government with a solid majority. Have we got the courage of our convictions? Nigel Lawson reduced the top rate of income tax from 60% to 40%. Throughout the period of the Labour Government, they kept that top rate at 40%, except in the dying days when Gordon Brown increased it to 45%, and it is still at 45%. There is no economic justification for it, nor was there for George Osborne’s attack on young entrepreneurs through national insurance. Has the Chancellor got the courage in this Budget to do what Nigel Lawson did, to be a visionary and to start simplifying our tax system and rewarding enterprise? I would be very happy to give way to him, if he wants to make that clear. As I said to the shadow Chancellor, given that 30% of all income tax receipts come from the top 1% of income tax payers, I accept that it will be impossible, probably, to ever achieve the dream of a truly flat-rate tax system, but we can simplify it and gradually flatten taxes. Businesses are employing thousands of accountants to help them avoid taxation. Why can we not simplify our taxation system? I hope we can make progress on that.

    I hope we can be a radical Government in other respects. I hope we do not feel we have to ape the Opposition in promising more and more public money. Of course, we have to spend more on the NHS—we have an ageing population with more and more treatments coming on stream—but we have to be a radical Government in trying to deliver outcomes. What is important is not what we spend on the NHS or social care, but the outcome, so we must not be afraid of promoting within the NHS private sector solutions that deliver more efficiency. What do the public care about? They care about their operation and treatment being on time. How that is delivered is not really a priority for them. I feel in his heart of hearts that the Chancellor agrees and is committed to achieving free-enterprise solutions.

    Wera Hobhouse rose—

    Sir Edward Leigh

    I remember that the Liberal party in its heyday was a party of free trade and liberalism, so I hope this intervention will be part of that.

    Wera Hobhouse

    Will the right hon. Gentleman not accept that the many vulnerable people who need help who come to my surgery, and whom I see on a daily basis, need good public services?

    Sir Edward Leigh

    Of course they need good public services, and we are a party of good public services, but we do not believe that the only way of improving public services is by increasing spending in real terms year in, year out. The best way to downgrade productivity and efficiency in the public services is by rapidly increasing spending without tight cost controls on outcomes. I am sure I can rely on the Treasury in that regard.​

    Where the Opposition have a point, and where we do have an argument, is that some of the big companies, particularly the American digital companies and tech giants, are not paying their fair share of tax. There is also an increasing feeling in this country—this is the one nation point—that the employment rights of some of the people at the bottom of the heap are being downgraded. The Conservative party has an historic opportunity to build on its alliance with working people to improve standards, workers’ rights and the ability of those big companies to pay taxes, and we can do that while also being an enterprise Government and rewarding hard work. By doing that, we can achieve a great deal.

    The last part of the jigsaw—this alliance with working people—is the question: why do they vote Conservative? Why did they vote for Brexit? It is because they are fed up with cheap labour being imported into this country and fed up with their rights and employment opportunities being downgraded. If the Chancellor is now looking to the world in terms of immigration, let him ensure that we will no longer downgrade the rights of workers in this country by importing cheap labour. Let us have good-quality labour—people who have something real to contribute.

    I believe that there is a real, historic opportunity for the Conservative party to build on this alliance with the working people in the north of England who have felt forgotten for so long. That opportunity is here, and I am confident that this Chancellor will deliver it.

  • Rachel Reeves – 2020 Speech on the Economy and Jobs

    Below is the text of the speech made by Rachel Reeves, the Labour MP for Leeds West, in the House of Commons on 20 January 2020.

    It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), and I echo her concerns about the financial ​services sector in any future relationship with the European Union. I also put in a plea for the manufacturing sector and its supply chains, which rely on regulatory convergence with our closest trading partners.

    I will concentrate my remarks on the employment Bill, but first I will speak about my worries for the economic outlook, especially ahead of the Budget in a few weeks. Business investment, which is essential for our long-term prosperity and productivity, has been falling for six quarters—the sharpest decline for a decade. The economic growth we have seen is anaemic at best, and the economy is likely to have grown by just 1.3% last year, with even lower rates of growth expected this year. That is half the average growth experienced over the past 50 years.

    Far too much of the growth we have seen is premised on unsecured household debt, which now stands at more than £15,000 per household—a record 30.4%. We cannot go on like that if we want to build a strong and sustainable economy. Yet we have heard very little, if anything, on that from the Chancellor this afternoon. Many of our cities are growing and have become richer, but inequalities are increasing, too. In other areas, particularly our towns that were once powered by industry, industries have largely disappeared thanks in large part to previous Conservative Governments, leaving an acute legacy of deprivation and disadvantage that I hope the Government will now make their focus.

    Turning to the employment Bill, behind the overall positive employment statistics a few facts should be ringing alarm bells to all of us who care about the living standards and the job security of those we represent, particularly the poorest. We welcome increases in the national minimum wage, even if it is not at a rate that we on the Labour Benches would like it to be, but underpayment has been steadily rising over the past two years. Some one in four workers aged over 25 earning about the legal minimum report that they were underpaid two years ago, yet only seven firms have been prosecuted in the past 10 years for underpayment of the national minimum wage, despite violations being in their thousands. Why is that? Even when fines are levied, the full penalties are not applied. Only half the penalties that could be imposed are being imposed.

    If we want our workers to be paid a minimum wage, we must ensure that laws are enforced. I support the Government’s commitment to a single enforcement agency to help workers enforce their rights, but I hope that it will be properly resourced and that the barriers the Government have sought to put in the way of workers looking to enforce their rights through the courts will not be repeated in this Parliament.

    I urge the Government to look seriously at the recommendations of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee from the previous Parliament, which called for workers to be granted worker status as a default, rather than having to take their case to the courts.

    Two other changes not in the Queen’s Speech would also be useful: an actual right to a contract reflecting hours worked, not just a right to request one, and, as the TUC has argued, two weeks’ notice of shifts, rather than an early morning text message to let people know whether they have work that day; and payment when shifts are cancelled without reasonable notice.​

    Too many firms, particularly in the gig economy, try to get out of paying full taxes, national insurance, the national minimum wage, and holiday and sick pay. That is a disgrace and we need much stronger action, yet the Government have let the issue drift while a growing number of workers miss out on the rights that we have fought so hard to secure both in this Parliament and, indeed, through the European Parliament. It is hardly surprising that work is now no longer always a route out of poverty. Some 14 million people live in poverty, including nearly 5 million children, and 60% of them are in households where at least one person works. This is a problem that is set to get worse under this Government, with the number of people in zero-hour contracts and in bogus self-employment on the rise yet again.

    I also want to say something this afternoon about business excess and the lack of regulatory oversight. We are now more than two years on from the collapse of Carillion. When Carillion failed, thousands lost their jobs, suppliers went unpaid and large-scale infrastructure projects, including hospitals in Liverpool and the west midlands, went unfinished. The collapse was caused by the recklessness, hubris and greed of its directors, yet they have not paid the price—others have. Carillion was a notorious late payer. Suppliers had to wait 120 days to be paid, or pay Carillion if they wanted to be paid on time. When it collapsed, 30,000 suppliers were owed £2 billion.

    Meanwhile, its pension scheme had a £2.6 billion deficit. Ordinary workers—but not, of course, the directors—will not get the full pension that they were entitled to. Yet its auditors, KPMG, signed off Carillion’s accounts for 19 straight years in a row without qualifying them or raising concerns.

    Here we are, two years on, and nothing has changed. The Government’s obsession with outsourcing and privatisation continues. The hands-off regulation and light-touch auditing continues. The employment Bill says it will give more powers to the Small Business Commissioner. That is welcome, but it does not really suggest the degree of urgency or priority that is needed.

    The corporate failure and the audit failure happened then and it could just as easily happen today. Our audit firms are too powerful. The assumption that the private sector is always best has to end. Small businesses should not be at the mercy of dominant big businesses that determine whether their suppliers are paid, and regulators should clamp down on abuse and not just turn the other way.

    This is not some abstract ideal. It is the basis of an economy that: values workers by paying them a decent wage and offering them some dignity and security in the workplace; supports businesses that play by the rules and invest in our economy while ensuring that big businesses do not exploit the system; and invests in every region and nation of our country—in green energy and transport, infrastructure and skills to help our economy to thrive for everyone.

    The Queen’s Speech touches on some of those themes but I fear that it lacks the conviction to do what is needed. There is a common theme in all this: the failure to put in place rules to stop workers being exploited; the chipping away of regulations that protect the most vulnerable; the remorseless faith in the private sector, with more outsourcing and privatisation; and the creation ​of city Mayors but a reluctance to devolve the power and money to let them do their jobs as effectively as they can.

    The real problem with the Government and the Conservative ideology is that they do not allow for a challenge to the neo-liberal economic model and do not account for the social value of the public sphere—the glue that binds our society together. While the Government speak on some of these themes, I do not believe that they have the willingness to see them through to deliver the economy that we need.

  • Alison Thewliss – 2020 Speech on the Economy and Jobs

    Below is the text of the speech made by Alison Thewliss, the SNP MP for Glasgow Central, in the House of Commons on 20 January 2020.

    I rise to support amendment (b) in my name and the names of my hon. Friends, and I will start where the Chancellor left off—with claims of having a mandate. Well, he certainly does not have a mandate in Scotland, where his manifesto was rejected wholeheartedly and where the Tories lost more than half their MPs; he has absolutely no mandate to preach to Scotland on his austerity plans. In the last few weeks, we have had a new year, a new Prime Minister and a new UK Government. Under any normal circumstances we would be looking at some kind of fresh start, but for the people of Scotland it is the same old situation: a UK Government who they did not vote for, dragging us out of the UK against our will and sidelining the Scottish Government at every turn.

    The Scottish Finance Secretary, Derek Mackay, wrote to the Chancellor looking for clarity on the Budget process on 22 December, but I raised this at Treasury questions on the first day back. I am not sure that the Chancellor even knew what I was asking about, never mind coming up with any kind of response. The Scottish Finance Secretary should not be finding out the date of the UK Budget in the media along with everybody else. It reeks of disrespect, and I think the Chancellor has yet to apologise. This comes after a November Budget that was cancelled so that the Chancellor could avoid any OBR scrutiny in the run-up to the general election.

    The Scottish Government and local government in Scotland now face the prospect of writing a budget blindfold, and the stakes could not be higher. I urge the Chancellor and his team to do all they can to make amends for this and to work co-operatively to ensure that the Scottish Government can make the best of this situation. If the non-domestic rates order or the income tax resolution were not passed on time, Scotland could face having to take millions of pounds out of public services. It would be catastrophic, and the blame would lie squarely at the door of this UK Government and this Chancellor. Even if everything does go as smoothly as it can through this process, Scottish councils are being left in the unprecedented position of providing the vital services that the public rely on, without having certainty about their budgets. Should the council tax need to go up, for example, the very practicalities of issuing the necessary direct debit notifications will add time and difficulty to the process for councils across Scotland.

    On funding, we welcome the Green Book review that the Chancellor is proposing, but we seek clarity on exactly what this will mean for Barnett consequentials, because in Scotland we still have not seen the £3 billion we are due as the share of the DUP’s bung from the previous Government. We still have not seen the £140 million that we were due from police and fire VAT. ​We need to know exactly what is going to happen with this Green Book process and how the Scottish Government will be involved in it.

    The Chancellor has followed the Prime Minister’s lead in showing a total disregard for the people of Scotland. We voted against this hard Tory Brexit at every available opportunity, and again we are being sidelined. The Chancellor was keen to talk about the immigration Bill and how much that will matter, but in fact immigration is something that we need, and value, very much in Scotland. I have people at my surgery, week in, week out, complaining about this Government’s hostile environment, and all I see the Government doing is making it harder for everyone. They are not making it any better for anybody; they are making it even harder with a further hostile environment being rolled out to EU nationals.

    Not only are this UK Government charging ahead with a withdrawal deal worse than the one that the previous Government and the previous Prime Minister came up with, but, as we saw in his interview with the Financial Times, the Chancellor is engaging in a race to the bottom when it comes to regulatory standards. He skated over the issue of equivalency, but we need to have a lot more detail on what he actually means by this. His predecessor knew well how important alignment was, and this Chancellor needs to explain why he has decided unilaterally to rip this up. Businesses are concerned that they are going to face tariffs, price rises and the loss of competitive advantage—particularly for Scotland losing out to Ireland. The Government are doing nothing to assuage these fears. This is particularly significant for services, which make up 81% of the UK’s total economic output.

    The Chancellor needs to confirm what his statement means for equivalency in financial services. What is outcome-based equivalency and what exactly does he mean by it? Without equivalency, the UK faces losing access to European markets. For those working in services, the Chancellor must confirm that he still intends to guarantee mutual recognition of professional qualifications, without which they cannot work and move across Europe.

    This withdrawal deal threatens economic growth across all the nations of the UK. For years after this Brexit, businesses will find it more attractive to take their investment moneys to other countries—to Germany, to the Netherlands, to Denmark and to Sweden. This is not my opinion; it is the opinion of David Blanchflower, the former member of the Monetary Policy Committee at the Bank of England. It is not just those nations that will benefit; we are seeing investment in Ireland booming. That is particularly clear to those of us watching in Scotland. Ireland has gained more than 4,500 jobs from international firms as a result of Brexit-related investment. IDA Ireland, the country’s foreign investment body, said that its annual results had gone up. Moreover, according to the European Commission, Ireland’s economy grew by 5.6% in 2019—the highest in the EU—while the UK’s growth dropped to its lowest since 2012. That is no coincidence.

    The value of being in the EU in a partnership of equals is not lost on my constituents and those across Scotland. I am sure that it will be more pronounced as we see the increasing negative effects of Brexit—because, ​after all, we have not left yet. The Centre for European Reform says that Brexit has already cost £70 billion, or £440 million a week—something the Chancellor has yet to put on the side of a bus. More and more people in my constituency and elsewhere are realising that this place cannot be trusted with safeguarding Scotland’s interests. The little growth we have seen has been attributed to businesses stockpiling in case of no deal, while investment has stalled since the EU referendum and does not show any signs of recovering soon. Companies cannot be expected to sit on investment for three years; they will move it elsewhere if they can. All the investment lost since 2016 will have an impact on wage growth and job creation for years to come, even if, by some miracle, we can avoid the harshest of hard Brexits. We are already seeing effects creeping into the labour market. The Fraser of Allander Institute estimates that a hard Brexit such as the one that we might face at the end of the month could cost Scotland 100,000 jobs.

    Of course, the Prime Minister and his cronies will say that this is all tosh and they are going to get Brexit done—abracadabra and off we go! I am afraid that the Chancellor knows just as well as I do that our relationship with Europe cannot be formed using a three-word magic incantation, no matter how many times it is said. There will be no getting Brexit done this month. There are still years of negotiations ahead. I cannot reassure businesses in my constituency what our relationship with Europe will look like, and I do not think the Chancellor can either.

    Turning to other measures in the Queen’s Speech, the Chancellor knows that I have long criticised his pretendy living wage, which fails to meet the aspirations of young people in particular. The gap for young people who will not fall into his pretendy living wage is growing. I do not know—and he cannot explain—why a 16-year-old starting the same job on the same day as a 25-year-old is worth £4.17 an hour less. Why is that? He is extending it to 21-year-olds; can he not see the injustice in not extending it to everybody? He must make it a real living wage. The Living Wage Foundation currently sets the living wage at £9.30 an hour. The Scottish Parliament Information Centre suggests that by 2024, it will stand at £10.90—far short of what the Chancellor is suggesting. He cannot justify that age discrimination in the minimum wage, and no Chancellor has been able to justify it yet. The fact remains that women are more likely to be in part-time, low-wage work, so there is a disproportionate effect on women, who often have families to support. They deserve and are entitled to better than the Chancellor is offering.

    I turn to the financial services legislation. Can the Chancellor provide a bit more clarity on the progress of the fifth anti-money laundering directive, which we have to implement, regardless of our leaving the EU at the end of the month? We in the SNP want to see reform of Companies House to uncover the beneficial ownership of Scottish limited partnerships, which were in the papers at the weekend, and other companies and trusts. We want to increase transparency, and we want to ensure that UK company information rules no longer allow illicit businesses to funnel millions of pounds of dirty money from all around the world, using British companies, and specifically SLPs. I wonder, is it any coincidence that in the first four weeks of the election campaign, the Conservatives accepted £567,000 from ​four companies with links to offshore tax havens in Luxembourg, Guernsey and the British Virgin Islands? I sat on the Joint Committee on the Draft Registration of Overseas Entities Bill. When will we see some progress on that Bill? It has been sitting there for some time, and we have not seen much movement.

    It would be neglectful of me not to challenge the Government on their austerity agenda—on issues such as the welfare cuts, the two-child limit, the rape clause and universal credit, which is causing so much pain to so many people across the country.

    Drew Hendry

    My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does she share my dismay that, more than six months after the UK Government said that they would hold a review, Marie Curie and the Motor Neurone Disease Association reckon that over 2,000 people have died before accessing the benefits they should have had through being classed as terminally ill? Is it not time that that scandal was addressed? The Government could take a simple measure to sort that out for these people and their families.

    Alison Thewliss

    I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention and the work he has done on this issue. The Government have had their eye off the ball on universal credit and so many other welfare measures on which the courts have found against them. We are still waiting to know what they will do to remedy the situation for so many of our constituents who are waiting for their money back from the Government.

    Another group of people who are waiting for their money back are the WASPI women. The Government have no plan for the WASPI women, who are entitled to their pension and should not have lost out as a result of successive Governments’ actions. The Chancellor is not even listening to this point, which is a disgrace. There are thousands of women up and down this country who deserve their money back, and this Government need to find a way of addressing that injustice, because these women cannot wait much longer.

    This Government need to be a lot more ambitious in tackling climate change, investing in green infrastructure and making real changes that will last for generations to come. They need to look at the way the energy system is set up, so that those who are producing energy in rural parts of Scotland are not penalised because of geography. With the transition away from oil and gas coming up—I understand my hon. Friends will be speaking about that later—we need to be making sure that that is a fair and just transition, meaning that communities will not be left behind, as they have been in the past.

    I am pleased to welcome COP26 to my constituency of Glasgow Central next year, but what has to come with that is investment from the UK Government to make sure that that event works as well as it should do: as a beacon to show what can be done and to highlight the very real achievements of the Scottish Government, who have made great strides in tackling climate change. In fact, a lot of the UK Government’s targets are actually being boosted by the actions of the UK Government, and that should absolutely be recognised.

    With all of these things in the Queen’s Speech, opinion in Scotland is shifting. People are seeing the difference between what is happening at Westminster and the potential of Scotland as an independent European ​country—a country where the welfare state could be restored from the tattered, damaged safety net that Tory Governments have left it to a system with a safety net that is full of dignity and has respect for everybody at its core; a country where the Government have all the levers to build an inclusive economy, built on participation and making sure that everybody feels as though they have a part in the economy; a country more equal for women, disabled people and ethnic minorities, where they can play a full part and not feel as though they are being penalised and left behind; and a country where we do not have to rely on mitigating broken Westminster promises. I am determined, as are all my colleagues, that Scotland should have the choice and a right to choose its own future, and to choose it before much more damage is done by this Tory Government.

  • John McDonnell – 2020 Speech on the Economy and Jobs

    John McDonnell – 2020 Speech on the Economy and Jobs

    Below is the text of the speech made by John McDonnell, the Labour MP for Hayes and Harlington, in the House of Commons on 20 January 2020.

    I beg to move an amendment, at the end of the Question to add:

    ‘but respectfully regrets that the Gracious Speech fails to put an end to a decade of austerity, to invest in the UK’s underfunded public services, or to scrap universal credit; notes the damaging impact that the four-year freeze in working-age benefits has had on families on low income; and calls on the Government to bring forward a plan to reverse the damaging impact austerity has had on communities in the UK, tackle the climate and environmental emergency, and reshape the economy to work for everyone by clamping down on tax avoidance, tackling insecurity in work by extending full employment rights to all workers, ending in-work poverty, and introducing a real living wage.’.

    I appreciate that many new Members will want to speak today, so I will seek to be as brief as possible. [Interruption.] I thought that would be appreciated on both sides. We aim to please.

    You, Mr Speaker, have been in the House as long as I have, so you will know that the classic approach to a good Queen’s Speech and its subsequent debate combines an assessment of the position of the country—a state of the nation address—with at least some attempt to address the issues facing our people. On both counts, the latest Queen’s Speech and this process is by any stretch of the imagination crushingly disappointing—I believe that the overriding view that will come to be associated with this Government may well be one of disappointment. They appear to have no appreciation of the lives so many of our fellow citizens live or of the often heartrending problems they face.

    The Government’s programme in the Queen’s Speech fails to reverse the decade of austerity. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said, austerity is baked into the Government’s economic policies, which fail to tackle insecure work, to end in-work poverty and to introduce a real living wage. Worst of all, the Queen’s Speech fails to address the brutal hardship caused by universal credit, introduced by this Government. We face twin emergencies: first, a climate emergency, an existential threat to our planet that, as we have seen only too well in Australia and Indonesia, is rapidly spiralling beyond control; and, secondly, in this country, a social emergency ​resulting from a decade of harsh austerity and decline. Last year, the House resolved that we faced a climate emergency. We should also resolve that we face a social emergency.

    Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)

    If what the right hon. Gentleman says is true—and I very much doubt it—and if his Eeyore approach to what the country thinks is correct, to what does he ascribe the best result for the Conservative party since 1987 just last month?

    John McDonnell

    I suppose we will have a longer debate at some stage about the outcome of the last general election. I will be straight with the hon. Gentleman: I think the overriding issue was Brexit and that the overriding message was the one the Conservative party put out of “Get Brexit Done”. I ascribe the victory of the Conservative party to that. I cannot be straighter with him than that.

    In the last three months in this Chamber, we have had debates on the spending review and the last Queen’s Speech in which hon. Members have highlighted report after report from independent agencies exposing the impact of a decade of austerity. I want to seize on one group as an example—a group dear to all our hearts. If we are to lay any claim to being a compassionate or even a civilised society, surely the most effective test is how we care for our children, and on that count the Government fail appallingly. Surely no Government could ignore organisations such as the Children’s Society and the Child Poverty Action Group, which have reported that more than 4 million of our children are still living in poverty. That means that one child in three is living in poverty in our country in the 21st century. Some 125,000 of those children are homeless and living in temporary accommodation.

    The effects on our children of living in poverty are well documented by the Children’s Society. Those children are more likely to be in poor health, to experience mental health problems, and to have a low sense of wellbeing. They underachieve at school, and experience stigma and bullying. The shocking statistic, though, is that 70% of children living in poverty are in households in which someone is in work. The Children’s Society describes that experience as being hit by a perfect storm of low wages, insecure jobs and benefit cuts. The result is remarkable: this Government have achieved the historic distinction of being the first modern Government to break the link between securing work and being lifted out of poverty.

    The Chancellor boasted recently that wage rises were at record levels compared with those of the last 10 years. That is a bizarre boast. Wage rises are at a 10-year record high because his Government have kept wage growth so low for the last decade. Average real wages are still lower than they were before the financial crisis. [Interruption.] The Chancellor, from a sedentary position, has again used the slogan “Labour’s crisis”. Let me try to find a quotation for him. George Osborne said:

    “did Gordon Brown cause the sub-prime crisis in America? No.”

    He went on to say that “broadly speaking”, the Labour Government

    “did what was necessary in a very difficult situation.”​

    The Chancellor, again from a sedentary position, refers to the deficit. Let me quote again. In 2007, George Osborne said:

    “Today, I can confirm for the first time that a Conservative Government will adopt these spending totals.”

    He was referring to the spending totals of a Labour Government, by implication. Let me caution the Chancellor, because we might want to examine his role at Deutsche Bank, where he was selling collateralised debt obligations, described by others as the weapon of mass destruction that caused the crisis.

    As I was saying, average real wages are still lower than they were before the financial crisis. The Resolution Foundation has described the last decade as the worst for wage growth since Napoleonic times. The recent increase in the minimum wage. announced with such a fanfare by the Government, reneges on their minimal commitment that it would be £9 an hour by this year. It certainly is not. The UK is the only major developed country in which wages fell at the same time as the economy grew after the financial crisis.

    The Government seem to believe that the answer to low pay is raising national insurance and tax thresholds. When tax thresholds are raised, the highest gainers are largely the highest earners, and raising them and national insurance contributions is the least effective way of tackling poverty. According to the IFS, only 3% of the gains from raising the national insurance threshold would go to the poorest 20% in our society. A £3 billion cut in the national insurance contributions of employees and self-employed people—which, at one stage, was promised by the Prime Minister—would raise the incomes of that group by 0.1%, which pales into insignificance in comparison with the losses endured from benefit and tax credit cuts since 2010. It is also worth bearing it in mind that, while the heaviest burden of austerity has been forced on the poorest in our society, this Government have given away £70 billion of tax cuts to the corporations and the rich.

    We have also heard Ministers refer to the so-called jobs miracle. Of course we all welcome increased employment, but when we look behind the global figures we find nearly 4 million people in insecure work with no guaranteed hours and 900,000 people on zero-hours contracts. Britain has one of the highest levels of income inequality in the developed world. A FTSE 100 chief executive will be paid more in three days than the average worker’s annual wage. Surely no Member of this House can think that that is right, can they? The gender pay gap is 17.3% and there is now an inter-generational pay gap of over 20%. There is an 8% pay gap for black workers, and if you are disabled the pay gap is 15%.

    There is nothing in the Queen’s Speech that will address any of this. There is nothing that will address the grotesque levels of inequality in our society and at work, certainly on the scale that is needed.

    Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)

    And 30% of all tax receipts come from the top 1% of earners.

    John McDonnell

    That is just income tax. It is interesting that the lowest earners pay 40% of their income in tax while the highest earners pay 34%. We know who is paying more in comparison with what they earn.

    There is nothing in this Queen’s Speech that will address the grotesque levels of inequality. Actually, the reverse is true because the Government are now launching ​another assault on trade union rights and, in particular, the human right of the ability to withdraw one’s labour. The Chancellor has also rejected future dynamic alignment with EU employment rights and standards, and there is a real fear—let us express it now—that this prefaces the fulfilment of ambitions of Conservative Members to undermine workers’ rights and conditions. Maybe that is what some of their campaigning for Brexit was all about. Wage levels are low, in part because this Government have produced a productivity crisis. Over the past decade, productivity grew at its slowest level in 60 years. A German or French worker produces in four days what a British worker produces in five, not because the UK worker is any less industrious; far from it. It is because investment in the UK has been broadly weaker than in the rest of the G7 countries, especially since 2016, and investment is currently stagnating.

    This has been exacerbated by the lack of investment not just in capital but in human capital—in training and skills. In his interview at the weekend in the Financial Times, the Chancellor highlighted the role of further education colleges, and I agree with him. He talked about the role they could play in raising productivity by promoting lifelong learning and skills training. As someone who benefited from further education while I was on the shop floor, I fully agree, but the reality is that this Government have brought FE to its knees, with the IFS suggesting that at least £1.16 billion is needed just to reverse the cuts that the Government have imposed on further education. We have seen a decade of a Government denying opportunities to the very people whose skills have been desperately needed, not just to fire up our economy but also to lift their families of poverty.

    Alongside skills, a vibrant economy needs to invest in the future if we are to compete in the fourth industrial revolution, but on investment in research and development, the UK is now 11th in the EU. We await the Government’s detailed proposals on investment in R and D, and if they are of a scale we will support them, but it will take a lot to make up for the lost decade in this field. A lack of investment in infrastructure and R&D has resulted in productivity going backwards in many regions of the UK. The 2017 Kerslake report identified a £40 billion productivity gap in the three northern regions compared with the south, which has produced some of the worst regional inequality in all of Europe.

    Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)

    The Labour manifesto wanted to scrap R&D tax credits. How does the right hon. Gentleman square that with his support for R&D now?

    John McDonnell

    Quite simply. It is a good question, because we wanted to scrap the tax credits and put direct investment into R&D. Some of the very advisers the Government have called upon, such as Mariana Mazzucato, have been ripping apart some of those tax credits for inefficiency and ineffectiveness. We shared the objective, but we found a different and more effective route.

    We have referred in the past to the differentiation between types of investment, and the example that we have used in previous debates is stark. Planned transport investment in London is 2.6 times higher per capita than in the north, so it is no wonder that rail infrastructure in the north has been falling apart. After a decade of ​decline, the Government at last seem to have at least acknowledged their mistake in refusing to invest in the regions—something we have been crying out for—but we will see what scale of investment is produced after the fine words.

    However, this is not just about capital investment in infrastructure. There is also a desperate need for revenue investment in the social infrastructure of our regions and nations. It is interesting that many cities and towns in the north have borne the brunt of austerity. Seven out of the 10 cities with the largest cuts in the country are in the north-east, the north-west and Yorkshire. That came about not by some miracle, but as the result of deliberate Government policy.

    Imitation, they say, is the highest form of flattery, so I suppose Labour should be flattered that the Government are now looking to rewrite the Treasury Green Book to reorient investment decisions towards the regions outside London and the south-east—an exercise that Labour undertook two years ago. I suppose we should also be flattered by the Government now following Labour in adopting a fiscal rule that enables them to take advantage of low interest rates to borrow, which we advocated at least four years ago.

    Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)

    As we are in the habit of stealing clothes, as the right hon. Gentleman would present it, the Labour Party had its election manifesto and the costings—two documents that obviously have been consigned elsewhere—but the third document was about corporate tax breaks, so does he suggest that the Government should look at existing corporate tax breaks and reorient them to support investment in other regions?

    John McDonnell

    Again, Labour undertook work to look at exactly that. We looked at the regional impacts and at how tax breaks are distributed unequally around the country. There is an important and exciting piece of work to be done, and some of those issues were considered by the Kerslake review in 2017. There will be some element of consensus on how we can direct future investment, and we can build upon that in the long term, because if anything comes out of the lessons of the past 10 years, it is that we need a longer schedule than just a five-year parliamentary process for capital investment of that scale.

    Returning to fiscal rules, the Government have now advocated a fiscal rule that largely follows Labour’s advice, but it is this Government’s third or fourth fiscal rule—I have lost count. Some of them have been adhered to—no, actually, looking back at it, none of them have actually been adhered to, which largely defeats the object of having fiscal rules. It will be interesting to see how long this one lasts and how far it is achieved. The problem is that, even if they use all the headroom that their new fiscal rule allows, they are only paying lip service to the need to invest at scale and for the long term. If we are to tackle the issues of poverty, regional inequality and, yes, climate change, the amount of new investment mooted so far by the Chancellor is nowhere near the scale needed to address the dilapidation of our infrastructure outside London, and it is certainly not at the scale needed if we are to tackle climate change. From what we have heard so far, the maximum amount of increased investment talked about by the Chancellor is less than today’s estimate of the cost of High Speed 2.​

    The Chancellor’s idea in his Financial Times interview, of splitting the Treasury and sending some of its officials to work in satellite offices outside London, is a pale imitation of Labour’s plans not just for regional offices but to move whole sections of the Treasury to the north, to move the Bank of England to Birmingham and, similarly, to locate a national investment bank outside London. If the Government are going to plagiarise Labour’s policies, they at least have a duty to do so competently.

    What all these things have in common is a failure to tackle the root causes of the problems to which the Government pay lip service: the grotesque levels of inequality in income and wealth in our society; the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few; the ownership of the economy by an elite, with the vast majority of people locked out of decision making and having no say on how the economy works or on who it works for; and an economy increasingly serving the few, not the many. There is no sign that the Government recognise the root causes of the crisis we face, whether social or environmental—at least, there is no sign of them doing anything about it.

    Of course, all these investment proposals will count for very little if the Government fail to secure a post-Brexit trade deal with our EU partners that protects jobs. On that score, it is hardly surprising that businesses’ fears rose when the Chancellor, in his weekend interview, cavalierly threatened to throw our manufacturing sector under a bus, as he rejected the calls from business for alignment with the EU to ensure his own Government’s long-standing promise of frictionless trade. He casually said:

    “There will be an impact on business one way or the other, some will benefit, some won’t.”

    Let us be clear that if frictionless trade is not achieved in a future trade deal or, worse, if there is no deal, the bulk of our manufacturing sector, including cars, aerospace, pharmaceuticals and food and drink, will be in the “some won’t” category. One recent estimate identified that, in the past decade, we have already lost 600,000 manufacturing jobs.

    Today, business leaders and unions have combined to warn the Chancellor that his promise to split from the EU will cost billions and damage UK manufacturing. Bizarrely, he blames the manufacturing companies for not having already prepared for any regulatory divergence coming out of any future trade deal, when no one knows what the deal or the rules will be. There is an element of Samuel Beckett or Kafka here, I am not sure which.

    We hear that the Chancellor is the only Minister to be secure in his job ahead of the possible “night of the long knives” reshuffle in February.

    Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)

    Following the Chancellor’s interview in the Financial Times, the response from the likes of the CBI, the Engineering Employers Federation, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, and the Food and Drink Federation is extremely alarming. They have said in unison just how concerned they are about the Government’s ambivalence, as my right hon. Friend says, about the real cost both to jobs and to industry.

    ​John McDonnell

    The Chancellor’s statement was reckless. I wish him well, as always, but I caution him that the Prime Minister may well be preserving him in his job to take the hit for any trade deal outcomes that go pear-shaped if frictionless trade is not achieved.

    I am aware that many new Members wish to make their maiden speeches. It is important that the Front Benchers do not take too long, so I will come to a conclusion. There is so much more to be said about the operation of our economy: about the failure of the Government to effectively address tax avoidance and evasion and money laundering, which infects our financial system; and about the failure, despite the scandals within the City, and within our accountancy and audit systems, to address our failing regulatory structures.

    Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)

    Is the shadow Chancellor aware that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ wealthy unit had 1,046 full-time equivalents 18 months ago but now has 961? What does that say about the Government’s approach to tax avoidance and evasion?

    John McDonnell

    The whole process of cuts in HMRC over the years has been a self-defeating one, by which we remove the expertise we need to ensure a fair taxation system and to tackle tax evasion and avoidance.

    There is a desperate need to harness our economy effectively, as we will discuss at a later date, and to end our dependence on fossil fuel and to do so much sooner than the inadequate target date of 2050. We will still have some opportunity to address these issues in the run-up to the Budget, but for now let me conclude by cautioning the Government that this Queen’s Speech fails dramatically to demonstrate the sense of urgency and scale of action needed to provide the decade of renewal they promise. Our people have endured a decade of decline. On the basis of what is laid out in this Queen’s Speech and the policy direction laid out so far by the Chancellor, they face not a decade of renewal but a decade of disappointment. We already have had a foretaste of the dangerous politics that disappointment and disillusion creates. We must avoid it, and I ask Members to support our amendment.

  • John Healey – 2020 Speech on Building Safety

    John Healey – 2020 Speech on Building Safety

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Healey, the Labour MP for Wentworth and Dearne, in the House of Commons on 20 January 2020.

    I thank the Secretary of State for an advance copy of his statement this afternoon.

    The Secretary of State will remember, as we all do, the shocking disbelief and grief in the immediate aftermath of the dreadful Grenfell Tower fire in June 2017, and he will remember, as I do, the solemn undertakings from all parts of this House to make sure that such a fire could never happen again. I never thought that, two and a half years later, I would be standing here facing a Secretary of State—the third Secretary of State—who still cannot say that all the necessary action has been taken and that a fire like Grenfell cannot happen again in Britain.

    Directly after the fire, the then Prime Minister made this promise on behalf of the Conservative Government:

    “Landlords have a legal obligation to provide safe buildings…We cannot and will not ask people to live in unsafe homes.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2017; Vol. 626, c. 169.]

    Yet thousands of people continue to live in unsafe homes, condemned to do so by this Government’s failure on all fronts after Grenfell. Why, two and a half years later, are 315 high-rise blocks still cloaked in the same Grenfell-style cladding? Why do 76 of these blocks’ owners not even have a plan in place to replace the deadly cladding? Why have 91 social tower block landlords still not replaced their ACM cladding, when this Secretary of State promised that it would be done by the end of last year? And why have the Government not completed and published full fire safety tests on other unsafe, but not ACM, types of cladding? Why has the Secretary of State had nothing to say this afternoon in his statement on these points?​

    The Secretary of State has made pledges of his own on Grenfell action. He promised:

    “to take action of a scale and a pace that is commensurate with the tragedy that prompted it.”—[Official Report, 30 October 2019; Vol. 667, c. 419.]

    Seventy-two lives were lost in that Grenfell Tower fire, yet there have been no prosecutions, no fire safety fund to retrofit sprinklers, no legislation to make private block owners, not leaseholders, pay the safety work costs, and still no legislation in place to overhaul building safety legislation more than 20 months after the Government’s own Hackitt review was published and accepted in full by Ministers.

    I know that the Secretary of State has approached this task with a very serious intent since he was appointed in the summer, and we welcome the setting up of a national regulator to do the job that Ministers and the Department have been unable to do so far. I also welcome the decision to name and shame block owners who will not do the work, and the recognition that the system of building safety checks and controls does not just affect buildings of over six storeys.

    There have been 21 announcements on building safety in this House since Grenfell, but there are still not enough answers and there is still not enough action, so let me ask the Secretary of State: given that the new building safety regulator will need legislation to underpin it, when will the new draft building safety Bill be published, and when on earth is it actually going to reach the statute book?

    The Secretary of State has said this afternoon that ACM cladding with an unmodified polyethylene core should not be used on buildings of any height. How many additional buildings does he estimate fall into this category? Also, why wait a month to name and shame block owners who will not do the work? Why not do it now? In fact, why did he not do it in June, when I previously called for him to do so? And why has he not restated to the House that June 2020—fully three years on from Grenfell—is the Government’s hard deadline for the full removal and replacement of ACM cladding from all tower blocks in this country? I am afraid that this is too little, at least two years too late.

    At every stage since Grenfell, Ministers have failed to grasp the scale of the problems or the scale of the Government action required, and I fear that we will reach the third anniversary—and, Lord forbid, the fourth anniversary—and still not be able to say to people with confidence that a fire like Grenfell can never happen again in Britain.

  • Robert Jenrick – 2020 Statement on Building Safety

    Robert Jenrick – 2020 Statement on Building Safety

    Below is the text of the statement made by Robert Jenrick, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, in the House of Commons on 20 January 2020.

    With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on the major package of reforms to the building safety system that I am announcing today.

    The Government are committed to bringing about the biggest change in building safety for a generation. We took action to address the fire safety risks identified following the Grenfell Tower tragedy, and in the autumn we committed to adopting in full the recommendations of the Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 1 report. We will shortly publish our response to the phase 1 report, and a full debate is scheduled tomorrow for the House to discuss this important issue at length. The focus of this statement will be on the wider programme of building safety reforms and the work that I am leading to ensure that everyone is safe, and feels safe, in their own home.

    The Government have already taken steps, including on aluminium composite material remediation, to tackle fire safety, but as that work continues, it becomes ever more evident that problems have developed over many decades, leading to serious incidents and the risk of further loss of life. This is completely unacceptable. It is clear that the problems will take many years to put right, but all of us—building owners, the construction industry, local authorities, the fire service and the Government—have an absolute duty to ensure that action continues to be taken as quickly as possible so that a tragedy such as the one at Grenfell Tower can never happen again.

    There has been progress, but it has been unacceptably slow, so today I am setting out reforms that go further, and I intend to ensure that they do so faster. First, we will begin immediately to establish the new building safety regulator. This new regulator will be established within the Health and Safety Executive, which is an experienced regulator and is committed to introducing the new regulatory regime at pace. Ahead of legislation, the regulator will initially be in shadow form, and I am pleased to announce that Dame Judith Hackitt will chair a board to oversee the transition to this new regime. I expect the shadow regulator to be established within weeks, and we will be recruiting the first national chief inspector of buildings.

    Secondly, our consultation on sprinklers and other measures for new build flats has now closed. I am carefully considering the responses and evidence received, but I can inform the House today that I am minded to lower the height threshold for sprinkler requirements in new buildings from 18 metres to 11 metres. Subject to further consideration, I will set out my detailed proposals in that respect in February.

    Thirdly, we banned the use of combustible materials in the external walls of high-rise buildings in December 2018. My Department concluded a review into the ban’s effectiveness, and today I am announcing a consultation on the ban, again going significantly further, including by lowering the 18 metre height threshold to at most 11 metres.

    Fourthly, my Department, with support from the independent expert advisory panel, has provided advice for building owners on the steps they should be taking ​to address a range of safety risks. We have listened to feedback, and I am today publishing updated advice that will provide the further clarity they have sought. This advice brings together 22 separate advice notes into one consolidated document.

    There is evidence that there has not been enough focus among building owners on buildings below 18 metres. The expert panel has decided to clarify that more action is needed to review the risks in buildings below 18 metres, and owners of those buildings should review the advice and take action where needed. I want to be clear with the House that it has never been the case that, simply because a building is below 18 metres, owners are exempt from ensuring the safety of their residents. The requirement on building owners is to make sure buildings of any height are safe, and I expect all owners to be acting responsibly.

    The panel’s new advice makes clear that ACM cladding with an unmodified polyethylene core should not be used on buildings of any height. This reflects the evidence from the materials research programme, which to date has confirmed that ACM presents a much higher risk than any other materials tested when used on the external walls of buildings.

    The consolidated advice note also clarifies the actions building owners should now take in relation to fire doors. I welcome the commitment from members of the Association of Composite Door Manufacturers to work with building owners to remediate their doors that have failed tests, and we will continue to monitor the situation closely.

    Fifthly, I am today publishing a call for evidence seeking views on the assessment and prioritisation of risks associated with external wall systems, such as cladding, within existing buildings. For many years, we have relied on crude height limits with binary consequences, and it is clear to me that this approach to assessing risk does not reflect the complexity of the challenge at hand. I have concluded that we need a better, more sophisticated system to underpin our approach. Height will remain a significant and material factor, but it will sit alongside a broader range of risk factors. I am therefore today commissioning leading experts in the field to develop, as quickly as possible, a sophisticated matrix of risk that will replace the historic system and underpin our approach to future regulatory regimes.

    Sixthly, while I welcome recent progress, remediation of unsafe ACM cladding, especially in the private sector, is still far too slow. This absolutely cannot continue, particularly when funding is now being provided by the taxpayer. Although all unsafe ACM cladding now has mitigation safety measures in place where required, I do not underestimate the concern of residents living in buildings where remediation has not even started.

    The latest data show that, out of 92 buildings in scope, 82 applications have been made to the private sector ACM cladding remediation fund, and that the 10 for which applications have not been made have exceptional circumstances, which I have reviewed. However, an application to the fund is not an end in itself; that can never be sufficient. Construction work to remediate these buildings should be proceeding as quickly as possible. We will therefore be appointing an independent construction expert to review remediation timescales and identify what can be done to increase the pace in the private sector.​

    Inaction must have consequences. From next month, I will name those responsible for buildings where remediation has not started and remove them from the public list only when it has. My Department will be working with the relevant local authorities to drive enforcement where necessary. The Home Secretary will deliver the fire safety Bill and associated regulatory changes in order to enable delivery of the recommendations of the Grenfell inquiry phase 1 report. The proposed Bill will place beyond doubt that external wall systems, including cladding and the fire doors to individual flats in multi-occupied residential blocks, fall within the scope of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. These changes will affirm the ability to enforce locally against building owners who have not remediated unsafe ACM buildings. Building owners and developers who have not already taken action must do so now. Further delay is not acceptable.

    Finally, I am aware of the concerns of leaseholders about meeting the cost of remediation. As I do not want cost to be a barrier to remediation, I am considering, with Her Majesty’s Treasury, options to support leaseholders. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I will set out further details in due course.

    The safety of people in their homes is paramount. Through the reforms that I have outlined today, I want to make it clear that this Government will not falter in doing whatever it takes to ensure that all buildings and all residents are made safe. I commend this statement to the House.