Tag: Ed Davey

The speech made by Ed Davey, the then Minister for Consumer Affairs, on 15 June 2010.

Thank you Ron, for that introduction – and for inviting me to this conference – not least, as it gives me the chance to make my very first speech as your Minister. I’m grateful to so many of you for making the early slot – though I guess your professional curiosity may have got the better of you.

A coalition Government? A Liberal Democrat Minister? Surely there must be some infringement of the Sale of Goods Act? Seriously, I’m actually very proud to be here, as Minister for Consumer Affairs.

Because I believe what you do – what Trading Standards’ wider family does, whether it’s Citizen Advice or the OFT, Scambusters or Consumer Focus, or your many other partner organisations – what you do isn’t just important. It’s vital.

Vital for consumers. Vital for business. Indeed, vital for the whole economy- for the recovery and beyond.

I want to be straight with you today about the public spending challenges we must all face – and I want to provide you with a sense of what the Coalition holds in store for you.

Yet I want to place on the record, right from the start, not just some warm words of thanks for your work, but a clear and unambiguous recognition that I believe you are part of the frontline of our economy.

The problem in public life so often, is that when things work well, they go unnoticed. Unvalued. The fact that we are fortunate to live in a country where the essential plumbing of our market economy normally works okay just doesn’t make good newspaper copy.

Whether it’s competition policy or consumer policy. Company law or insolvency law. Britain’s economic plumbing is actually amongst the best in the world.

There may be exceptions. I’m told that recently there have been some problems – with the banks. Yet I’m leaving all that to Vince.

But when it comes to consumer policy and the overall consumer framework, the UK scores highly when compared to the rest of the EU and the Anglo-Saxon world – and we should celebrate that.

But before you all get too comfortable, my message today is certainly not that everything’s hunky dory, so we won’t be changing much. Far from it.

Even without the financial pressures, there would have been an agenda of change.

Let me give just three well-known illustrations of some drivers of change.

Technology. Great work has already been done-and by many here- to grapple with the new challenges in the digital world but I’m sure no-one believes that e-Crime, for example, is sorted.

Climate change. I believe that we’ve only just begun to scratch the surface of how the climate change challenge will affect our daily lives, particularly when buying and selling goods and services.

Globalisation. It’s not just that business is more global- it’s that crime- and serious organised crime – is more global. Counterfeit or dangerous goods. Fraud and money laundering. Drugs and human trafficking. All on a truly international scale.

So age old questions face by generations of Trading Standards Officers and their colleagues have to be posed again in this new environment.

How do we protect the most vulnerable – when the con man isn’t just knocking at the door, but phoning them up, using international direct email and emailing them too?

How do we keep the local face and the local knowledge, yet share information and co-operate across agencies, across local authority boundaries and indeed national boundaries, so we can keep one step ahead of the villains?

How do we minimise the regulation on businesses, striving hard to grow when we need their help to stop global warming?

Talking to Ron Gainsford, your excellent CEO, here at TSI. Talking to Ted Forsyth, the excellent Chief Trading Standards Officer in the community I represent. I know your profession is addressing these issues. But I want you to be clear that these are our priorities too.

Now over the next few weeks and months we will be more concrete in how such priorities will actually translate into policy over the next weeks and months to come. But I have no intention of rushing to re-invent the wheel.

I am, for example, currently studying the results of the recent consumer landscape survey that officials have been undertaking. And thanks, by the way, to those of you who’ve played a role.

And I’ve been reading something called a “Manifesto for Trading Standards”.

It’s already clear that some significant consultation will need to take place this year or next, before we can finalise any serious reforms.

So I hope today’s question and answer session can mark the start of a vital early dialogue between myself and you as a profession, to gather your ideas before any major changes are made.

Of course there is one driver of change that threatens to derail considered policymaking, whether we like it or not. And that’s deficit reduction. So let me take that head on, as promised.

Even under the last Government, I think it’s fair to say, Trading Standards was not a spending priority. I don’t have the sense that Trading Standards are a gold-plated service, even if they can still often be a golden standard.

And yet, I don’t imagine anyone here seriously think that Trading Standards will be spared from shouldering its share of the pain of deficit reduction.

The question is, for all of us – can we do more with less? Or, in some cases I guess, do the same with less.

I don’t honestly believe that in services like yours a salami slicing approach is going to work anymore.

So how can central Government, working with local authorities across the country, help to realise major efficiency savings – cuts – without jeopardising the core objectives of the vital service we are here to deliver?

Well, I’m hoping that this conference can begin to answer such questions.

I notice for example that you have one session on today’s programme entitled “How to halve the cost of a prosecution and double its chance of success”. I hope I can be sent the speaker’s notes.

But I hope you as an Institute can develop your own thinking and best practice about how Trading Standards might deepen still further existing co-operation with other local regulatory services – both within and across local authority boundaries.

The consumer landscape review has taken evidence already from examples of Trading Standards Departments experimenting with just that sort of rationalisation. As Minister, I need to hear your views, learn about what works and what doesn’t and understand how my Department can help you manage such challenging change.

Now, if I were a cynic summing up my speech so far Conference, I’d say that the Minister began by telling us how important we are, didn’t tell us what he was going to do with us, and then asked us to come up with some major savings.

But thankfully I’m not a cynic. Because I’m genuinely interested in working with you to find practical solutions to your issues.

So let me list a few issues I’ve already asked my officials to look into as evidence of my intent to be your champion in Whitehall.

First, could we grant the public, access to existing information, existing databases, held on prosecutions of rogue traders and other breaches of fair trading laws?

This may not be straightforward.

For example, I’m advised there are some key legal issues to consider before we can decide to make all or part of the Central Register for Convictions publicly accessible. But consider those issues we will.

Better sharing of information both with the public and between enforcement agencies is something I want to focus on.

Second, could we ensure that Trading Standards basic testing to combat under age sale does not require RIPA authorisation? While this is a Home Office lead, the advice I’ve received suggests the Home Office’s existing Code of Practice gives Trading Standards some reassurances. But perhaps the guidance could be clearer and more practical. Once again, I undertake, today, to work with TSI if your members continue to see a problem here.

And third, can we do more to help you combat scamming, whether by letter, telephone or email, by taking measures at critical choke points of a scam like the transfer of funds to the scammer? I’ve asked officials to look at the main ways money is wired abroad in response to international scams, to see if we can work with the main payment companies involved so consumers can be identified and warned of dangers, before it is too late.

These are just 3 small but practical examples – I’m sure in your questions you will come up with many more ideas.

You see, in coalition politics, in the new politics, we’re already learning some important lessons.

Look for where you can agree.

Be honest where you disagree.

And then work, in good faith, to come to solutions that take the best from all sides.

Ron. Conference, I hope that’s exactly what we can do, together, for each other, And above all, for the public. For whom Trading Standards is such a force for good.

So we don’t just preserve the excellence in Trading Standards in a difficult climate, but take that forward to new even higher levels.

I’m looking forward to our joint task. Thank you.

The speech made by Ed Davey, the Leader of the Liberal Democrats, on 28 September 2020.

The challenge facing our country has rarely been so great.

Families and whole communities fearing for their future – in the face of an invisible enemy.

It’s natural and right that in such troubled times, people look to government for reassurance. Help. Leadership.

Given the enormity of the threat to our country, it’s with deep regret and sadness that I must say: this Government and this Prime Minister have just not risen to this challenge.

With unbelievable incompetence, this Conservative Government is failing our people, in one of our darkest hours.

If you judged the UK’s response to this crisis solely on what the Government is doing, it would be easy to despair.

But as I travel the country, listening to people…

As I hear what they are doing to beat the threat of coronavirus – to support their neighbours, save their businesses, care for their relatives…

As they share with me their dreams as well as their worries…

As we all witness how NHS staff, carers and key workers have shown amazing resilience in the face of extraordinary challenges…

I am far from downhearted. I am inspired.

Take Anne and Bob – who own a fish and chip shop in Stockport and put me to work on a lunchtime shift a few weeks ago.

They’d been planning to sell the business and enjoy a well-deserved retirement. Then COVID struck.

Anne and Bob put retirement on hold, to lead their restaurant through the crisis. They put their staff and customers first, and worked harder than ever to save the business.

They hope they’re past the worst now – and can pass the business on to their young manager, Jamie, who’d joined them aged 14, after struggling at school. This amazing couple had nurtured him and feel he is now ready to take over.
Jamie and his partner have just moved house. They are expecting their first child. And his enthusiasm for taking the business forward, after 13 years working there, is uplifting.

I hear stories like this, from people like Anne and Bob and Jamie, in every community I visit. And I am in awe of how hard people are fighting to prevent this disease from stealing their dreams.

Coronavirus is causing enormous hardship and forcing all of us to make big changes. But it’s also showing the best of the British people.

People’s resilience, kindness and hard work make me absolutely sure we can get through this.

But it’s those qualities – demonstrated every day by people across Britain – that are in sharp contrast to how Government Ministers have responded to the pandemic.

Just look how Boris Johnson refuses to take even the slightest responsibility for the chaos and harm his Government has caused.

Their failure to get protective gear to frontline workers in hospitals and care homes?

Not his fault.

When Johnson’s chief adviser undermined public trust by breaking lockdown with his trips to Durham and Barnard Castle?

Different rules, for him.

When Johnson’s “world-beating” test-and-trace system turns into a shambles?

Claims instead a huge success.

When children’s entire futures were thrown into doubt by the summer’s results fiasco?

Blame the civil servants.

Blame Ofqual.

Blame the teachers.

Blame anyone but Boris Johnson.

Johnson’s hero, Winston Churchill, said that the price of greatness is responsibility. It seems that’s a price this Prime Minister isn’t willing to pay.

When I’ve listened to people who’ve lost loved ones to COVID, listened to the bereaved families our Prime Minister refuses even to meet…

The public inquiry into the Government’s handling of COVID, that I first called for in April, could not be more urgent.

And the public inquiry, when it comes, must look into one Government failure above all.

Ministers’ abject failure to protect people in care homes. The elderly people. And the carers.

From the lack of tests and PPE, to the lies about a “protective ring” around care homes, while people died in horrifying numbers.

For this pandemic has reminded everyone of something Liberal Democrats have always understood: caring for people’s health doesn’t stop at the hospital exit, or the GP’s surgery door.

You can only truly protect our NHS, if you protect our care homes too. You can only truly speak up for doctors and nurses, if in the same breath, you stand up for carers. For young carers and professional carers, paid and unpaid, in care homes and in people’s homes.

This is personal for me. You see, I’ve been a carer for much of my life.

First as a teenager, when I nursed my mum during her long battle against bone cancer. My dad had died when I was four. My mum was my whole world. So on one level, it was easy caring for mum: I loved her.

But it was also incredibly tough. Taking her tumblers of morphine for her agonising pain, before going off to school. Coming home to look after her. Helping her on and off the toilet. Taking life, day by day. Because there was nothing else you could do.

And at the end. Visiting her on a totally unsuitable dementia ward in my school uniform, alone by her bedside. When she died.

I was a carer as a son. And then as a grandson: Organising the care for my Nanna, getting her into a good home, figuring out how we could afford it. Trying to make her last few years as comfortable as we could.

And now, as a father. As Emily and I care for our son John every day.

John is 12. He can’t walk by himself. He was 9 when he first managed to say “Daddy”. John needs 24/7 care – and probably always will. And that’s my biggest challenge: John will be on this planet long after Emily and I have gone.

So we worry. No one can possibly love him like we do. Hold him like we hold him.

And our fears are shared by so many parents. Many not as fortunate as Emily and me.

So let me say this, to all of you who need care, to all of you who are carers, to the parents of disabled children, to the thousands of young people, caring for your mum or your dad.

I understand what you’re going through.

And I promise you this:

I will be your voice. I will be the voice of the 9 million carers in our country.

It’s you I’m fighting for.

Just like we Liberal Democrats did in Government, when we fought to tackle the funding crisis in adult social care.

Through the Dilnot Commission and the Care Act, we carefully stitched together a cross-party agreement, based on the same values that underpin our NHS. Only to see the Conservatives rip it up as soon as they could.

So now, more than a million people miss out on the care support they need.

With people stranded in hospital, unable to leave, as the follow-up care isn’t there. With the challenge passed back to the NHS, already struggling for cash.

You see, if Ministers really care about the NHS, they need to care about care. The cross-party talks on social care – long promised by Boris Johnson – cannot wait any longer. The Covid crisis makes the need to fix social care more urgent, not less.

So, today, our Health and Care Spokesperson Munira Wilson and I have invited the Government, the Labour Party, and leading care organisations to begin these talks in earnest and finally make the progress people deserve.

And I’m proud that our party is now championing a universal basic income – because by far the largest group to benefit will be carers.

I am determined that the Liberal Democrats will lead the way to a more caring society as we emerge from this pandemic.

A society that cares for those whose jobs and businesses have been taken by coronavirus.

Our economy was unfair enough before this. But we cannot allow the random unfairness of this pandemic to scar people’s lives, especially the young.

We must stand together. Leaving no one behind.

Employers in hard-hit sectors must be given more support, to prevent many more people losing their jobs. People excluded from the self-employed scheme must be given the help they desperately need.

And Liberal Democrats: we must also lead the way to a new economy. One that’s fairer. And greener. An economy offering real hope and opportunity for everyone.

This pandemic has already changed so much. The daily commute. The congested roads. The lunchtime sandwich. Home-working may have changed that forever.

But as we weigh the positives of home-working – more time with the family. More time to care. With the negatives – too much isolation. Too many working with too little space.

I want us to listen to people – to understand how they want their working lives to be. The Conservatives aren’t listening. Their answer is all about going back. Back to the office. Back to the old ways.

I say: let’s do the future differently. Starting by finding out what people want.

We can’t let Dominic Cummings – in his NASA-style Whitehall mission control – plan our future. No. The future will be shaped by people and businesses in every community across the UK.

So as we listen to people, we must listen to people in business. Businesses that create jobs and opportunities for people across the UK. Businesses facing the COVID challenge. The Brexit challenge. The climate challenge.

No one else is listening to them. So the Liberal Democrats will.

And in partnership with business, let’s mould the new economy.

So if there’s less demand for office space, let’s work with businesses to turn those buildings into sustainable, affordable homes to help solve the housing crisis.

If there’s less demand for air travel – let’s switch investment from Heathrow’s doomed third runway into green zero-carbon flight, and save jobs in our aerospace sector.

If there’s less demand for oil and gas, let’s work with industry to transition the UK into the world-leader in clean energy technologies – from hydrogen for heating to tidal for power.

If you listen and work with business, you can build new green industries, with thousands of green jobs.

I know, because I’ve done it.

In government, we Liberal Democrats helped make the UK the world-leader in offshore wind. We brought green jobs to the UK’s nations and regions. Something the Tories said simply wasn’t possible.

Like the Siemens factory in Hull, where they now produce the incredible 75-metre-long blades for offshore wind turbines. It has created more than 1,000 new jobs – in a city that once had the country’s highest unemployment. It has breathed new life into a dock, long after its original purpose died.

Once, ships left Alexandra Dock full of coal, to be burnt in the dirty power stations of the past. Now, ships leave Alexandra Dock carrying wind turbines, to be installed in the clean power stations of the future.

Liberal Democrats did that.

By listening to business, and in partnership with business.

And that’s how we can build the new green economy we need.

But if we want to change the country’s future, we first have to change our party.

It’s an incredibly humbling thing to be elected leader of the party I joined 30 years ago.

I’d like to thank Layla Moran, for making the leadership campaign a positive one, full of ideas and energy.

And it’s a huge privilege to follow in the footsteps of my personal hero, Paddy Ashdown. Of the great Charles Kennedy. And of my good friend, the wonderful Jo Swinson.

Jo did our party proud. Parliament is so much poorer without her. But Jo leaves a fitting legacy: the first majority of women MPs in our parliamentary party, ever. And Jo, I want to follow your lead, and make our party the most diverse party in British politics.

Because, my friends, we are right to take the knee, and support the Black Lives Matter movement. But unless we have more black members, more black Councillors. Unless we have black Liberal Democrat MPs. Can we truly say we are listening to Britain’s black communities as they demand a voice?

Friends, we need to listen to everyone.

I am proud of everything we stand for as a party and everything we have achieved together.

The listening I’m talking about. The listening we need to do. It isn’t about changing our values.

We will always be a proud Liberal party. Defending individuals. Nurturing community. Protecting civil liberties. Championing the environment.

Patriotic. Internationalist. And yes, always pro-European.

These values are why I love this party.

But we have endured three deeply disappointing general elections, in five tough years. At the national level at least, too many people think we’re out of touch with what they want.

We can’t fix this with a catchy new slogan. Or by fighting the same battles, in the same way. The answer is to listen to what people are really telling us. And to change.

We know that people want a better future for themselves and their families. So let’s show them that the Liberal Democrats can build that better future. That we will help them get on in life.

Let’s show that we’re a party that understands the worries that keep people up at night. That can deliver on the things that matter most to them.

And let’s show that we stand for fairness. For the rights of every individual.

But to do all this, we can’t just talk to ourselves. We can’t just speak for people like us.

We have to represent the whole country, not just some people.

We are not a think tank or a pressure group. We don’t exist merely to put forward ideas or espouse a set of principles – however noble they may be.

We are a political party.

If we want to help people get on, and build a fairer, greener, more caring future, we have to win.

And that is why, next May, we must get more Liberal Democrats elected to councils across England, to the Assembly in London, to the Senedd in Wales and – crucially – to Parliament in Scotland.

Elections often determine the future of our country, but these Scottish elections could well determine if our country has a future.

Once again, the forces of nationalism threaten to tear our family of nations apart. So it is imperative that we get brilliant Liberal Democrat MSPs elected to Holyrood in May.

To reject more division and instead put forward a positive partnership. To work for Scotland and work for a better United Kingdom.

This is why we must change. So people choose positively to elect more Liberal Democrat MPs at the next General Election. To kick the Tories out of Government and Johnson out of Number 10. To restore compassion to our politics and justice to our society. To champion the values of liberty, equality and community. To tackle the climate emergency and build green jobs and opportunity for all.

It’s only by listening…

by rebuilding our connection to people in communities across the UK…

by demonstrating that we are on their side, that we do want to help them get on…

that we can win those elections and make a real difference to people’s lives.

Only then can we guarantee Anne and Bob the dignity in retirement they deserve.

Only then can we make sure that Jamie’s child grows up in a country of genuine opportunity.

Only then can we give all disabled children and young carers real hope for the future.

That is the mission now before us. So let’s get to it.

The speech made by Ed Davey, the Leader of the Liberal Democrats, on 27 August 2020.

I’d like to start by thanking my friend Layla Moran. Layla, you fought a passionate campaign, full of energy.

Since becoming an MP, you have inspired so many people, particularly young people. Your future is bright and I look forward to you playing a big role in my team.

To members of the Liberal Democrats, thank you for putting your faith in me and giving me the honour of leading a party I joined 30 years ago.

And I want also to thank a whole host of people who’ve run this campaign – whether in party headquarters alongside the Returning Officer, or in my own amazing campaign team.

The thousands of people who’ve volunteered time to campaign with me. Who’ve donated to my campaign. Who’ve championed our vision of a greener, fairer, more caring society.

I’d particularly like to thank Claire Halliwell, my Campaign Manager. Claire, you’ve been fantastic.

And of course Emily, my wife and our two beautiful children, John and Ellie. Thank you Emily for your amazing support, patience and love.

I am sure I am speaking for many people when I say that – for all the stress and uncertainty of the last few months – one positive has been the chance to spend more time with our families. And so I’d like to thank Ellie in particular, for appearing as a surprise cameo in so many of my zoom calls and online hustings.

I want to talk now about the future of the Liberal Democrats.

I joined this party 30 years ago. I met Emily here. I have made so many good friends here.

And with those friends, I have campaigned across our country, knocking on tens of thousands of doors, delivering hundreds of thousands of leaflets.

The reason I have done all this is simple.

I love our party.

I believe in it.

I stand for all the things the Liberal Democrats stand for:

Social justice, political reform, equality and protecting our environment.

I stand for fairness and for fighting to protect the rights of ordinary people.

I’m determined our Party backs a Britain that works with other countries across the world for peace and prosperity.

But, it is my love of our party that makes me recognise that we have to change.

We have to wake up and smell the coffee.

Nationally, our party has lost touch with too many voters.

Yes, we are powerful advocates locally.

Our campaigners listen to local people, work hard for communities and deliver results.

But at the national level, we have to face the facts of three disappointing general election results.

The truth is…

Voters don’t believe that the Liberal Democrats want to help ordinary people get on in life.

Voters don’t believe we share their values.

And voters don’t believe we are on the side of people like them.

Nationally, voters have been sending us a message.

But we have not been listening. It is time for us to start listening.

As leader I am telling you: I have got that message. I am listening now.

Whether you’re from the North, South, or somewhere in between

Whether you voted for Brexit or Remain, or just wanted the whole thing settled

Whether you voted Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, SNP or Plaid

My message for you is this:

I will travel up and down our country to meet you.

To hear about the things that matter most to you.

Your problems and fears, your hopes and dreams.

I will face up to uncomfortable truths.

And I will make your concerns my own.

Our country is going through one of the most extraordinary and difficult periods for generations.

The challenge of Covid will affect our country and the world for decades to come.

Millions of people are suffering.

As Leader of the Liberal Democrats, I want to reach out to help you and your community get through this.

Whether your concerns are your families’ health, your children’s education or your livelihood.

I want to understand the new future you want after all this – and help to deliver it.

So my job from today is to rebuild the Liberal Democrats to national relevance so we can deliver this future for you, for your family and for the people who need it the most.

None of this is going to be easy.

None of this is going to be straightforward.

And none of it is going to be quick or simple to achieve.

But I want the Liberal Democrats to represent the whole country, not just some people, and to stand for fairness and opportunity for all.

That is my commitment to you as the new leader of the Liberal Democrats.

The hard work starts today.

Below is the text of the speech made by Sir Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat MP for Kingston and Surbiton, in the House of Commons on 23 March 2020.

I would like to begin by thanking everyone who is working hard to keep our country and our world as safe as possible from this dangerous pandemic. Above all, I want to thank the staff of our NHS and our social care sector. We are seeing people face personal risks, and we will forever be grateful for what they are doing.

In normal times, I and my party would be opposing many of the measures in the Bill with every breath in our bodies. The implications for civil liberties and human rights are profound and alarming, but our society now faces the unprecedented threat of coronavirus, which leaves some of the most vulnerable in our society at serious risk. It seems clear that at least some of the new powers being sought by the Government are necessary to deal with the threat. Nevertheless, our position is that the powers must be used only when absolutely necessary during this emergency, and not for a moment longer.

Like others, I welcome the Government’s change of heart on the two-year renewal. The six months now proposed is, self-evidently, a significant improvement. Nevertheless, we remain unclear why it is six months rather than three months. There may be good reasons, but it is important that the Government set out why they chose six months. After all, the Prime Minister said just the other day that the peak of the epidemic would be just 12 weeks away, so it is not unreasonable to ask why six months is needed.

Moreover, we need to look carefully at the review process. When it comes, it should enable amendments to this law, and the other place needs to be allowed to vote on it too. Let me give one reason why a more frequent renewal process should be considered. It relates to the Bill’s provisions on social care. The Bill temporarily suspends the duties on local authorities to meet people’s care needs—from older people to adults and children with disabilities. I am yet to be convinced that those provisions are needed at all. They are some of the most alarming provisions in the Bill. At a time when the most vulnerable in our society need more care, not less, why on earth are people’s rights being reduced? At the very least, such a reduction in rights for the elderly, disabled and mentally ill must be subject to early review and renewal.

The right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) was right to raise the issue of personal protective equipment and testing. NHS staff who have contacted me are angry and alarmed at the lack of PPE. They do not understand why the distribution system has taken so long and is still failing to provide PPE for so many people. The testing experience in this country compares appallingly with other countries.

There are other problems with the Bill. Due to the time, I will mention just one: the Bill’s failure to enable the Government to extend the Brexit transition period. ​I know that is politically sensitive and contentious. I know we need to bring our country together after Brexit tore us apart, so I do not seek to reopen the Brexit question, despite what my heart tells me. I raise the Brexit transition period as a practical and real issue. Our economy faces its biggest challenge since the second world war—disruption to business on a scale even greater than would have been caused by the worst-case scenario of a no-deal Brexit. Surely, the Government should think again and allow themselves to extend the Brexit transition period.

We on the Liberal Democrat Benches will support the Bill tonight, but with a very heavy heart. We hope the Government will come back and allow the House to ensure that we can protect our country against this coronavirus threat but not ditch our civil liberties and human rights.

Below is the text of the speech made by Sir Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat MP for Kingston and Surbiton, in the House of Commons on 19 December 2019.

It is a great privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), and it was a delight to hear that he is a convert, however late, to increased public spending. He made some interesting points about macroeconomic policy and he spoke about the new fiscal rule that the Chancellor announced just before the general election, which I hope the House will soon get to debate. He welcomed that rule, but I have some concerns about it as I think it rather old-fashioned. I would like a new fiscal rule to consider the net worth of the public sector and ensure that it is growing over time; at the moment it is in negative territory, particularly because of various pension fund liabilities. That would be a much better approach to managing fiscal policy long term, because it looks at the whole balance sheet of the public sector, which is what a normal business would do. We now have a data set for the past three years from the Office for National Statistics, and I hope we can have that debate later on, because it is important to get fiscal policy right.

The right hon. Gentleman made two other interesting points about monetary policy. He spoke about wanting to bring back quantitative easing, which is an interesting question.

John Redwood indicated dissent.

​Sir Edward Davey

The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, and I am sorry if I misinterpreted his remarks. We should look at quantitative easing and how it is done, both in this country and elsewhere. There is some concern that the way central banks have done it has not led to a fair distribution of prosperity and that the money has gone into a small number of hands, resulting in increased inequality.

I am slightly worried by something that the right hon. Gentleman said about monetary policy that might imply—he might disagree that this was his implication—that there should be some challenge to the independence of the central bank by the Government of the day. I would not welcome that, although I would certainly welcome a debate on quantitative easing. I look forward to debating with him, so that we get our macroeconomic policy right. Finally, I will just say this. It did appear that the right hon. Gentleman was talking about expansionary fiscal policy and expansionary monetary policy. I wonder if he is worried about the impact of Brexit on our economy.

Like the Leader of the Opposition, I would like to remember one of our late friends, Frank Dobson, who passed away last month. Although we were members of different political parties, I found Frank to be one of the friendliest, most decent and most committed Members of this House I have ever met in my 20 years here. From his opposition to the Iraq war and apartheid to the work he did to rebuild the NHS, Frank leaves a proud record. In his role as the Brian Blessed of the Commons, Frank also leaves several volumes of funny, filthy and totally politically incorrect jokes. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure you would like to hear an example, but I fear I must remind the House that our proceedings are being broadcast before the 9 pm watershed.

I pay tribute to the mover and the seconder of the Humble Address. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) has a bright career in front of her, particularly in pantomime. I invite her to join me in my annual walk-on part for St Paul’s Players in Chessington. This year, during the general election, I took my family and I had my walk-on part as one of Robin Hood’s merry men. I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I know where the baddies are in this House and where the Sheriff of Nottingham sits. The hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) made an impressively long speech as a bid for a job ahead of the Prime Minister’s ministerial reshuffle. I wish him luck.

I believe our United Kingdom is one of the greatest examples of international co-operation in world history, so much so that four nations can be as one while being themselves: democratic, open and internationalist, operating under the rule of law and under the uniting presence of Her Majesty. We have been a beacon of political stability in the world. I believe we remain fundamentally a people who are outward-looking, inclusive, compassionate and capable of progressive reform as we recognise and value the lessons of history.

Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. Does he agree that, while the Scottish National party might trumpet gaining 80% of Scottish seats, the fact is that only 45% of the people of Scotland voted for it? If we had a more proportional representation system, that would have been reflected in the seats there, in the same way as the seats here might have been a little different.

​Sir Edward Davey

My hon. Friend is exactly right. The majority of people in Scotland voted for parties who want to preserve the Union. I get a sense that right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Benches should also note that the majority of people voted for parties who wanted to give the people a final say on the European Union.

We needed a Queen’s Speech that would truly keep our country together, heal the divides and tackle the challenges of inequality, lack of opportunity and climate change. However, I fear the Prime Minister’s Queen’s Speech will only undermine our united country’s great traditions. I fear that, with this Government’s programme, we will become a more inward-looking, more illiberal and less compassionate country. The one nation rhetoric of the Prime Minister is not matched by his actions. Let me start with Brexit.

Let us be clear that the Prime Minister and the Conservative party now own Brexit. It is their total and complete responsibility. They cannot blame anyone else any more. They have become the Brexit party from top to bottom. The question, of course, is this: will the Prime Minister get Brexit done? More precisely, will he get it done by the end of the year, so we can avoid the disaster of a no-deal Brexit? Well, we shall see.

The Prime Minister’s biggest weapon in his Brexit deal endeavour is surely his unmatched flexibility with the truth. His so-called triumph of achieving a deal for Brexit phase one was possible only because he betrayed his big promise to the Democratic Unionist party, his erstwhile big supporters. His willingness to jump unashamedly over every red line he had previously been willing to die in a ditch for will have been noted in Brussels by Europe’s rather more skilful negotiators.

Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)

The right hon. Gentleman makes a fairly accurate assessment of the communication between the Conservative party, its leader and my party, but does he agree that there is still the opportunity and time for redemption?

Sir Edward Davey

There is always time for redemption, but if the hon. Gentleman is hoping for it in this case from this Prime Minister, I wish him well.

Some of us have led successful negotiations, pan-Europe, in Brussels—difficult negotiations that I won for Britain—on everything from economic reform of the single market to climate change. I did not succeed by adopting this Prime Minister’s tactics of bulldog bluster combined with the record of a turncoat. I do not believe that that is the right approach, and I do not believe that he will succeed without reneging on all, or most, of his previous promises to leave voters. My parliamentary interest in this is whether or not, in the dark Conservative forests of the Brexit Spartans, his erstwhile friends have yet smelt betrayal. We shall see, but as we oppose Brexit and continue to point out the extra costs, economic damage and loss of influence, we will also remind Government colleagues of the previously unthinkable concessions that now need to be made for any chance of a deal next year.

I turn to the NHS, which the Prime Minister has made so much of. Every Member of the House was elected on a manifesto committed to increasing spending on the NHS in real terms—maybe there is a little political consensus there. I, for one, am relaxed about ​putting a spending commitment for the health service into law, but that prompts one question: is the spending enough? I do not want to repeat the election debate, where the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats were arguing for higher health spending than the Government. Instead, let me approach it in a rather different way, in terms of what our medium-term NHS spending target should be.

Most health analysts tend to talk, not as the Prime Minister does, in the abstract—in total spending, which is bound to go up with an ageing population and economic growth—but in comparisons between similar countries: on spending per person, on the percentage of the national income. If we compare the UK’s health spending in these ways—even with the Prime Minister’s rises—against the world’s other largest developed countries, the UK fares badly. In the G7, our health spending per person is the second lowest—lower than Germany and France. As a share of national income, in the G7, the UK again performs badly, with Italy the only country that is spending less.

I readily admit that the NHS is far more efficient as a health service than, say, the health system of the United States, but surely we should be really ambitious for the NHS, and the factual evidence shows that this Government and this Queen’s Speech are not. As we legislate for future NHS spending targets, why do we not take the opportunity to be really ambitious? Why do we not aim to spend 10% of our national income on the NHS, as a minimum? That would bring us up to G7 comparators, and I think that the British people would back a policy where £1 in every £10 of the national cake was spent on the nation’s health. I accept that the Government may be nervous about spending targets based on national income because their economic policies look set to fail so badly and national income will grow very slowly.

John Redwood

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that comparing a health service that is completely free to the user with one where there are payments through insurance schemes and collections of money is not a fair comparison? He should add in all the costs of the Inland Revenue in the UK, because that is the way we collect the revenue. And in relation to a previous point that he made, I think Brexit is good for the economy, not bad—I have always said that.

Sir Edward Davey

I will come to that last point in a second, but the right hon. Gentleman’s point about health systems is an interesting point for debate. I point to countries such as Denmark, which have a taxpayer-funded system and spend a significantly higher share of their national income on health. I am afraid that his point is not valid.

Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Edward Davey

No, I am going to make some progress.

On economic policy and Brexit, I have to tell the House that I am worried about self-imposed Brexit austerity. I will explain why. First, take the damage to growth from Brexit and the red tape of Brexit at our customs borders, a cost estimated by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs at a mere £15 billion every year. We had a red tape battle in the coalition, and we never ​got anywhere near saving that amount of money, yet this Government want to impose that cost on our businesses.

Then we have the damage to businesses and our NHS from the ending of free movement of labour within the EU. That will damage growth overnight. It is not just the impact on economic growth of this Brexit austerity that worries me, but the impact on the poorest and most vulnerable in our society who will feel it the most. We have already seen the numbers of children in poverty rise by nearly 400,000 since 2015, and we have seen the report from the Resolution Foundation, which I hope that Government Members will read, that analysed the Conservative’s general election manifesto and said that child poverty will continue to rise year-on-year with that party’s policies.

Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)

One hundred and thirty-five thousand children will live in temporary accommodation this Christmas, and this Government make no proposal to resolve that tragedy. Temporary accommodation causes childhood trauma and the problem will be resolved only if we build a lot more social homes for rent.

Sir Edward Davey

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Shelter’s report made that very point this week. There was no mention of homeless people in the Queen’s Speech, and no mention of tackling child poverty.

There was another huge omission from the Queen’s Speech: the climate emergency. Sure, we heard the unambitious 2050 net zero target mentioned again, but just like in the Conservative manifesto, there was a lack of a sense of urgency and of a set of practical but radical measures. I find that truly alarming. It is particularly alarming because this Prime Minister has previously written so scathingly about the need to tackle climate change.

Meg Hillier

The right hon. Gentleman will know, as a former Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, how long it takes to get these major projects that will deliver big change up and running. In my speech, I outlined three failures that happened because of this Government and their predecessor. Does he agree that we need to get action going now?

Sir Edward Davey

I absolutely do. In her speech, the hon. Lady mentioned carbon capture and storage; I had pushed that competition forward, and it was going very well but, directly after the 2015 election, the then Chancellor cancelled it overnight and put Britain’s global leadership on this key climate change technology back years. It was a disgraceful measure.

I was talking about the opinions of the Prime Minister on climate change. Just seven years ago, in his infamous Telegraph column, he sought to cast doubt on mainstream climate science, dismissing it as complete tosh. You can hear him saying that, can you not, Mr Deputy Speaker? Instead, he warned about the

“encroachment of a mini ice age”.

That is what our Prime Minister said.

On wind power, in which Britain now leads the world thanks to Liberal Democrat Ministers—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] If anybody wants to contest that point, I am ​happy to take an intervention. None are coming. What did this Prime Minister have to say about what is now the cheapest form of renewable power? He said that wind farms would barely

“pull the skin off a rice pudding”.

This technology is a global leader from Britain. It is powering our homes, but the Prime Minister apparently does not believe in it.

Then we see the Conservative record on climate change since 2015, voted for at every stage by the Prime Minister: scrapping the zero carbon homes regulations, banning onshore wind power and stopping tidal lagoon power.

And then we come to Heathrow. In south-west London, we do not forget what the Prime Minister said just four years ago, when he promised that he would

“lie down in front of those bulldozers and stop the construction of that third runway.”

If only, Mr Deputy Speaker—if only.

Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this Conservative Government’s commitment to expanding Heathrow, and the economic benefits claimed for it, do not justify the impact on climate change, the impact on air quality and the impact on noise, in south-west London in particular but also over a very wide area?

Sir Edward Davey

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She has been an amazing campaigner against the third runway, and I always admire her advice and thank her for it.

When we on these Benches say that we do not trust this Prime Minister and this Government on climate change. The evidence is with us, so we will raise the need for radical action on climate change time and again in this Parliament. We will work to force the Government to make the next global climate change talks in Glasgow in November a success, even though they come, ironically, just when the UK will be losing its influence on climate change at the European table. We will champion the need to decarbonise capitalism, and to build on the fantastic work done by the Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney. Today, in the Financial Times, we read that Mr Carney is taking action, introducing world-leading climate stress tests in major financial institutions. If only this Government would back the Bank of England in the City, there would be a historic opportunity for this country to lead the world with a gold standard for green finance, but I fear that there is no ambition on the Conservative Benches for that.

This Queen’s Speech is disappointing on so many levels, and we will vote against it. Liberal Democrats in this Parliament will do our democratic duty: we will scrutinise the Government, and argue for the liberal, inclusive, fairer and greener society in which we believe.

Below is the text of the speech made by Sir Ed Davey, the acting spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, in the House of Commons on 17 December 2019.

May I, Mr Speaker-Elect, give you heartfelt congratulations from those on the Liberal Democrat Benches and wish you the very best as you manage the proceedings of this ​House? In your election in the last Parliament, you struck a chord with many Members when you spoke about improving the security of Members, staff and our families. It is sad to say that you were right to lead on this, not least as we remember the two young victims of the terrorist attack on London Bridge—Saskia Jones and Jack Merritt, two young people dedicated to helping others to whom we should pay tribute today as this House returns.

Mr Speaker-Elect, I was delighted that in your acceptance speech before the election you spoke eloquently and positively about the speaking rights of smaller parties. I can assure you, Sir, that Liberal Democrat Members want to make their voices heard, not least on behalf of the 3.7 million people who voted for us last Thursday. Under proportional voting, we would now easily be the third largest party in this House with 70 MPs—a fact that I know, Sir, you will take account of.

You will appreciate, Mr Speaker-Elect, that the past few days have been difficult for my colleagues and I, having seen our friend Jo Swinson lose her seat. Jo consistently said during the election that there is an issue even bigger than Brexit—namely, the climate emergency. On these Benches, we will be seeking your help as we raise this issue and argue for the radical climate change policies that Jo advocated. Thank you, Mr Speaker-Elect.