Tag: Ed Miliband

  • Ed Miliband – 2020 Comments on the UK’s Energy Statistics

    Ed Miliband – 2020 Comments on the UK’s Energy Statistics

    Comments made by Ed Miliband, the Shadow Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary, on 30 July 2020.

    The figures are moving in the right direction, but not yet at the pace befitting the scale of the climate crisis facing us all.

    As COP26 hosts, the UK should be blazing the trail in the global fight against climate change with a Green New Deal. Yet we are falling behind our European neighbours, whose investment in a green recovery has dwarfed this government’s.

    With billions of taxpayer pounds being channelled by ministers into fossil fuels abroad and the UK still off track for meeting our targets, the Government’s actions are clearly still too piecemeal and inconsistent.

  • Ed Miliband – 2020 Comments on Amazon Offering Free Food Deliveries

    Ed Miliband – 2020 Comments on Amazon Offering Free Food Deliveries

    The comments made by Ed Miliband, the Shadow Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary, on 29 July 2020.

    The food retail sector has played a hugely important role during the Covid-19 pandemic, from those working in the supply chain, to supermarket staff and delivery van drivers.

    The pandemic has changed how people live, work and shop, and retailers have adapted in response, with grocery sales helping drive up retail figures.

    The world increasingly moving online means scope for innovation, but there must be a level playing field between the high street and online retail. Time after time the Tories have disadvantaged businesses based on bricks compared to businesses based on clicks.

  • Ed Miliband – 2020 Comments on the Largest Recession for 300 Years

    Ed Miliband – 2020 Comments on the Largest Recession for 300 Years

    Text of comments made by Ed Miliband, the Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, on 28 July 2020.

    While it’s welcome that retail sales figures are up, we cannot be complacent with many parts of the sector still struggling. These figures reinforce the cause for concern for many non-food retailers including clothing, furniture and shoe shops.

    The UK is facing the biggest recession in 300 years and we are seeing a wave of redundancies. High streets are the backbone of communities across the country, and their continued vitality is absolutely essential to local economies and livelihoods.

    If the government is serious about protecting the high street, they should back up their words with deeds. Labour is calling on ministers to put in place a new £1.7 billion fightback fund, which will give local communities the flexibility to support their local businesses.

  • Ed Miliband – 2020 Comments on Government’s Green Jobs Announcement

    Ed Miliband – 2020 Comments on Government’s Green Jobs Announcement

    Below is the text of the comments made by Ed Miliband, the Shadow Business Secretary, on 6 July 2020.

    We have consistently called for a recovery which has energy efficiency at its heart, and will welcome any measures which achieve that.

    However, this is not a comprehensive plan. It appears there is almost nothing for the people who rent the 8.5 million homes in the social rented sector and private rented sector, which has the worst energy efficiency standards. That means one third of people are left out.

    It also needs to be part of a much broader and bigger scale strategy for getting back on track for net zero which includes a zero carbon army of young people getting back to work, investment in nature conservation, driving forward renewable energy, helping our manufacturers be part of the green transition and a plan for our transport network.

    The French government has promised 15 billion euros for a green recovery, the German government 40 billion euros. The UK government £3 billion so far. When the moment demands the Government creates the most ambitious green recovery possible, the Government has not so far risen to the challenge.

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

    Ed Miliband – 2020 Speech on the Business and Planning Bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Meg Hillier

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

    Edward Miliband

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Richard Fuller

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

    Edward Miliband

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

    Kevin Hollinrake

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

    Edward Miliband

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

    Kevin Hollinrake indicated dissent.

    Edward Miliband

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

    Kevin Hollinrake

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

    Edward Miliband

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Ed Miliband – 2020 Speech on the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill

    Ed Miliband – 2020 Speech on the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill

    Below is the text of the statement made by Ed Miliband, the Labour MP for Doncaster North, in the House of Commons on 3 June 2020.

    I begin by thanking the Business Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, ​the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), for the constructive conversations that we have had about the Bill, including with the shadow Business Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell). We are very much approaching this in a constructive way, and we welcome the discussions.

    I want to focus on the provisions in the Bill and the wider policy context around insolvencies, which will determine what happens to millions of businesses in our country. As the Secretary of State implied, we face potentially the most dramatic recession in 300 years. What is more, we know that it is a recession necessitated by the essential public health measures that have been taken to contain coronavirus. Just as we are mutually dependent on each other when it comes to controlling the pandemic, I believe there is agreement across the House that that sense of mutual dependence should extend to the businesses of our country, because it is the right thing to do and because it is in all our interests. Every viable business we save will make the recession less deep and the recovery easier. Every business lost is disastrous not only for that business and its workers, but for our economy and all of us.

    We know the great distress that many businesses are facing, and I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to businesses up and down this country that are keeping going in these circumstances, with one fifth temporarily pausing or ceasing trading during lockdown and another quarter saying that their turnover was down by at least 50%. That is the context in which we should test our approach as a country. I acknowledge that this challenge is bound to test the imagination, speed and responsiveness of any Government, and that is why we want to work constructively with them.

    In that context, we welcome the measures in the Bill to help reduce insolvencies and will support their passage. As I will explain, we do not think the Bill does enough to address the dangers for what we might call the less powerful interests—particularly employees—when it comes to insolvency and the new restructuring provision, and I will explain what I mean by that.

    Let me say something about the headline provisions, many of which we agree with. As regards the permanent measures, we support the moratorium to give breathing space to firms. We welcome the measures to prevent suppliers from sending businesses into liquidation, suspending so-called ipso facto provisions, and I will say something in a minute about our views on the new restructuring plan provision.

    Ian Paisley

    I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and for welcoming this Bill, which I do as well. Does he accept that what is so important about the Bill is that it includes and incorporates Northern Ireland absolutely? Northern Ireland is not cut adrift and the Bill does not have some special arrangement that the Assembly will manage; Northern Ireland is part and parcel of it. The measures have given collective support to businesses across all the United Kingdom and especially in Northern Ireland. Without British money, we would have been ruined. That is the bottom line.

    Edward Miliband

    I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is very important that the approach is UK-wide, and I welcome that.​
    Let me say something about the temporary measures in the Bill. We think it makes sense to remove the threat around winding-up orders, for example, to deal with the issue around landlords. We welcome the measures that the Secretary of State put in place, but there is another way around, as it were, which is a landlord issuing a statutory demand followed by a winding-up order. We think that the suspension of personal liability for wrongful trading while insolvent makes sense as a measure, but for a strictly time-limited period. It is important, as I think is clear, that other duties continue to apply to directors.

    In addition, easing the requirements on company filing deadlines and AGMs makes sense. Indeed, given proceedings yesterday in this House, the facility in the Bill for virtual proceedings at AGMs carries a certain irony. If only the Business Secretary had told the Leader of the House, perhaps we would have been spared a lot of trouble and a lot of queuing yesterday.

    As the hon. Members for Dudley South (Mike Wood) and for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) have both said, there is clearly a case for a longer period than to 30 June. This is no disrespect to the people writing the Bill, but I think we can agree across the House that the temporary measures will need to be in place for longer. We would be happy to see an amendment that puts the end of September in the Bill, and one of our amendments would do that. I accept the Secretary of State’s point that the change can be made by statutory instrument.

    Having given the Bill a broad welcome, I want to raise some issues.

    Stephen Doughty

    I agree with all that my right hon. Friend has said. Does he agree that some extension will be needed for some of the sectors that may be hit for longer, such as the creative industries? Many in my own patch will be affected for longer because they will be closed down for longer, and they need special assistance.

    Edward Miliband

    My hon. Friend is a brilliant champion of those industries and other industries in his constituency, and I agree with him. I will come on to the particular sectoral challenges that the Secretary of State and the Government are facing.

    Let me mention the areas where we would like to see improvements made to the Bill. First and most importantly, the Government’s case on the restructuring plan provision is that it could have benefits in enabling companies to restructure and not go into liquidation and in stopping large creditors from forcing companies to do so. I accept the case. I think I am right in saying that the cross-class cram-down provisions—it is not a very beautiful phrase—apply across the EU under EU law and apply in the United States as well. What is important about the provisions is that they mean that even if a class or classes of creditors object to a rescue plan, it can still go ahead providing they are better off than in the other most likely scenario, which is often going to be liquidation. That is why protecting those without power—creditors and others—is so important.

    What cannot be allowed to happen—I know the Secretary of State agrees with this—is for the RP provision, which has wide scope and is not just for companies that are insolvent, but for those who fear they might become so, to be used to ride roughshod over the rights of ​employees, including their pensions. Given the nature of the crisis we are in, it is essential that there are proper safeguards.

    To give an example, the Secretary of State will have heard earlier the deep concerns across the House about the actions of British Airways, including sacking its employees and apparently offering worse terms and conditions. The RP provision cannot become a charter for more of that sort of action, and it is our mutual responsibility to make sure it does not become so. I know the Secretary of State shares that view.

    Richard Fuller

    I am extraordinarily grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising this point, because he will be aware that when a company is in a crisis situation and has so many wolves at the door, it has to make rapid decisions to salvage the assets and the business and continue, hopefully, to trade profitably. He is putting his finger precisely on the issue of what the rights of employees in that circumstance are and what protection there is for their pension benefits in the long term—that is a fundamental part of this issue. I am interested in his new clause on employee representation, which refers specifically to trade union representation; would he be prepared to broaden that out to include some broader sense of employee representation?

    Edward Miliband

    I welcome what the hon. Gentleman says, and the answer is yes, because lots of businesses do not have trade unions, and the question is what rights employees will have in those circumstances. The US experience is quite informative: I mentioned the US hazard provision, and at American Airlines and General Motors we saw employees lose out very significantly. The hon. Gentleman’s point about pension provision is absolutely part of this. I very much hope—this is the spirit in which we are approaching the Bill—that the Government will seek to improve the protections that are in place. Our new clause 5, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, seeks to ensure mandatory discussions with the trade unions once a company enters a restructuring process. That will ensure that employees are provided with all the information made available to the court and fully consulted on any restructuring plan, and the court could then take that into account. There may be better and more comprehensive ways to build in such protection, but it is essential that we do so. Perhaps the Minister can come back on that in his winding-up speech and, indeed, in Committee.

    Secondly, we are concerned about similar issues when it comes to insolvency. Unsecured creditors are left to bear most of the risk of insolvency, so they are often at the back of the queue when it comes to being protected. The protection of unsecured creditors, or the greater protection of them, could be provided through strengthening the ring-fencing of the proceeds of sale of assets when a company becomes insolvent, increasing the proportion of the proceeds reserved for them to 30%, and removing the financial limit, which is what we propose in one of our amendments. We also believe that pension schemes—this goes to the point that the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) made—should be made a priority creditor in the event of insolvency so that they get to have a role as a class, because currently I do not believe that they necessarily will.

    ​Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his position and wish him well. I have a bit of concern about what I refer to as predatory companies, which look for companies that are probably heading towards insolvency and see them as an opportunity to gain something. I wonder whether it is possible to ensure in the Bill that such predatory companies that would prey on those in trouble, of which there are many, are prevented from taking over an asset that is probably solvent in the long term but is not in the short term.

    Edward Miliband

    I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I once used the word predatory in relation to companies and it was rather controversial, but I think the consensus may have changed. [Interruption.] Government Members are saying it has not; it was worth a try. The hon. Gentleman makes a really important substantive point on which I think Members from all parties can agree, and it goes to the width and breadth of this provision: we have to make sure that companies cannot use it as a way to take their employees for a ride. I know from my conversations with the Secretary of State and the Minister that the intention to make sure that that does not happen is shared throughout the House, but we have to give expression to it in the Bill, and I hope the Government will indeed do so.

    Let me turn to some things that are not in the Bill—

    Kevin Hollinrake

    The right hon. Gentleman touched on his amendment that would ring-fence 30% of assets for unsecured creditors; is he not concerned that if we did that, people who are willing to extend finance to businesses on a secured basis may be less willing to lend?

    Edward Miliband

    I believe I am right in saying that the hon. Gentleman knows a lot about this, and I congratulate him for his work on the all-party group dealing with the whole range of these issues, but I am talking about the situation after secured creditors and others have been dealt with. There is currently a provision for 20%, but up to a limit of £800,000. Our amendment seeks to make that 30%, and to raise the proportion, but remove the limit. We must ensure that we do all we can for employees and small businesses—my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central will correct me if I have got those figures wrong, but I think I am broadly right.

    Two sets of issues are not in the Bill, although we would have liked them to have been included, as I believe they are missed opportunities. First, in 2018 the Government consulted on a set of corporate governance safeguards in the wake of the scandal at Carillion, and indeed at Thomas Cook, which came after that. I understand that the Bill relates to the immediacy of the coronavirus crisis, but it would have been better if the Government had acted on those vital corporate governance issues in the Bill, and we would have supported them in doing so. Given that this crisis makes corporate distress more likely, it is strange that the Government have not chosen to introduce such measures. The risk is that we will get more Carillions and Thomas Cooks, with all the consequences of that for employees.

    In 2018 the Government were committed to greater accountability of directors in group companies, legislation to enhance powers for insolvency practitioners, and further raising standards by ensuring an explanation ​about the affordability of dividend payments. Labour supports all those measures—indeed, we have tabled amendments to insert them into the Bill—and we do not think they cut across the need to protect businesses through the coronavirus crisis. Will the Government explain what plans there are for those improvements to corporate governance? I understand that the Bill must go through at speed, but it would have been better if it contained those measures.

    Secondly, like the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire, I wish to mention late payments to small businesses, and the important role of the Small Business Commissioner. If larger companies do not make good on their payments to small businesses, that could be the thing that pushes them over the edge. We believe that the Bill could be used to strengthen the powers of the Small Business Commissioner to help businesses that are struggling with cashflow and liquidity, and such a measure would have improved the Bill.

    As I have said, we want to facilitate the passage of the Bill as it is important to protect businesses up and down the country, and we hope it can be improved in the ways I have set out. Having dealt with its specific provisions, however, let me deal with the wider context. The measures in the Bill can play a part in preventing insolvencies, but as the House knows, the number of businesses that go out of business depends on the external environment and on what the Government do in response to that. I welcome the action taken by the Government so far. There are lots of measures that we support, but we also believe there are gaps and other areas where the Government need to act.

    I wish briefly to outline four sets of issues that go directly to the question of insolvency. First, I fear that the support system introduced by the Government is still not working sufficiently for our SMEs, and it risks worsening the insolvency problem. We called for the 100% underwriting of loans six weeks ago for smaller firms, and we welcomed the bounce back loan. Clearly, however—the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) made this point—those loans do not do enough for SMEs that need more than £50,000 of liquidity.

    The bounce back loan was intended to improve the working of the CBIL scheme, but I am afraid that has not happened. I have the figures for what happened to the CBIL scheme in the past few weeks—I am sure the Secretary of State is as in touch with them as I am—and the number of facilities approved each week is going down, and the gap between the total numbers of applications and approvals is widening. Somebody contacted me the other day who will not be counted in those figures. He waited two months to be told by his high street bank that he was not eligible and that there was no point in him applying for a loan under the CBIL scheme. He will not be counted in those statistics, and hon. Members across the House will have heard of similar experiences.

    I know that the Secretary of State is dealing with a range of issues to do with companies in distress. As I understand it, the idea was to get rid of the forward credit check for the CBIL scheme, but that does not seem to be doing the business and we need to understand why. I personally would be open to having 100% underwriting slightly higher up the scale, but we need a solution.​

    Secondly, beyond SMEs, I am deeply concerned about particular sectors, with manufacturing top of the list. We have seen thousands of redundancies at Rolls-Royce, real problems in the aerospace sector, issues in the car industry and massive issues facing steel. In France, steel received support within a fortnight of lockdown, whereas here our companies are still waiting. We read stories in the Financial Times about public equity stakes being considered—the so-called “Project Birch. It sounds like an interesting idea, but I say to the Secretary of State that this is taking too long, both for larger companies and for the SMEs in the supply chain.

    Stephen Doughty

    My right hon. Friend is right to mention steel and aerospace in particular, as they are crucial providers of jobs in south Wales, and we have the situations with BA and with the steel industry. Does he agree that we need to get support to them as soon as possible?

    Edward Miliband

    My hon. Friend has been powerfully advocating for the steel industry, along with other hon. Members in all parts of the House, and there is real urgency in this respect.

    Let me just say something about the CLBIL—Coronavirus Large Business Interruption Loan—scheme, which is for larger loans. We are talking about more than £45 million. I fear that this is Treasury orthodoxy, so I will not expect the Secretary of State to comment. We all know Treasury orthodoxy—I do, as I used to work there. The good news is that the Chancellor raised the limit to £200 million for the amount that companies can get, but the bad news for companies is that the CLBIL loan has to become their most senior loan—it has to be top of their list. The problem is that that means companies then have to renegotiate their other most senior loan, so they are caught in a Catch-22 situation. I suspect the Secretary of State agrees with me, but he cannot say; perhaps the Chancellor is watching. I say to the Secretary of State that companies such as McLaren have said, “We have tried to get this loan but we cannot get it because of this Catch-22 situation.” This is urgent and I urge him to get it sorted. We have had only £1 billion paid out under this scheme; 191 firms have got loans, but that is out of 579 that have applied. This is about manufacturing largely; it is about lots of large manufacturers across our country who are really in distress. There is more to be done in advancing some of the money that is already in the budget for low carbon. That is true in relation to aerospace, where I believe there is a fund—I am hoping that can be advanced— and to steel.

    Let me refer to some other sectors, as one of my hon. Friends did earlier. With the public health measures that are necessary, it is obvious that sectors such as hospitality, tourism and the arts will face much greater pressures for longer; they are going to take longer to reopen and recover. To give the House a sense of the scale, I should point out that the British Beer and Pub Association has warned that up to 40% of Britain’s pubs cannot survive beyond September with the current level of financial support; that one third of jobs in tourism-related areas are estimated to be at risk; and that the Society of London Theatre and UK Theatre estimate that 70% of the 290,000 jobs in that sector are at risk. Those are dire warnings we are being given.​

    That brings me on briefly to the furlough scheme. It has been a really good innovation, but I do not understand why the Chancellor is pursuing a one-size-fits-all policy on that scheme, because the public health measures mean that some sectors will take longer to reopen and recover. Whether through the furlough scheme or a second wave of support, these sectors are going to need extra help. I know the Secretary of State is working on this, but I underline its importance: we are talking about thousands of pubs across our country, hundreds of theatres and arts venues, and jobs in tourism. These things are the lifeblood of our constituencies.

    Thirdly, I want to raise with the Secretary of State the issue of the “month 13 problem” of insolvency. This is a bit further off, but it is still an issue. Even if the Government fix their loan schemes and provide the sectoral support required, the more debt there is weighing down companies, the greater the danger of insolvency down the line—this debt overhang is also bad for our economy when it comes to recovery. [Interruption.] I hear the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire muttering about borrowing from a sedentary position, but I am talking about private debt. The Federation of Small Businesses has been suggesting for some time that loans need to become income contingent. It has suggested a student loan-type approach. In other words, when businesses get to a certain level of financial health, they can start repaying the loans. There may be other ways forward, such as converting the loans into equity, but we are going to need solutions for these firms.

    Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)

    Would the right hon. Gentleman support the ideas that I have been doing some work on—as have lots of people—outside this place in relation to recapitalising the British corporate sector, not just in terms of debt to equity, but in finding ways to get much more equity into our businesses so that they are not weighed down by debt? That approach could be how we recover from this situation.

    Edward Miliband

    I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We need innovative thinking in this area. We are going to have to do things—I think that the Chancellor has said this—that we would not have done in normal times, but we cannot send businesses back out into an economy that is recovering, with this massive debt overhang. [Interruption.] I will not give way again because I need to get on with it so that other Members can speak; I can see the beady eye of Madam Deputy Speaker.

    Fourthly, crucial to helping businesses through this crisis is an economic stimulus that matches the moment. In particular, I hope that plans for a green recovery, which the Government have been talking about, will be at the centre of what they do. This is the way to get our economy moving, help to save businesses and meet our climate goals.

    The Bill is a step forward. We continue to have worries about the protection of workers in the event of restructuring and insolvency, and hope it can be addressed as the Bill passes through both Houses. I wish that the reforms to corporate governance had been included.

    I will end by mentioning the wider economic context. We are only at the end of the beginning of the economic crisis that we are facing, and there is a need for urgency, boldness and action in the coming weeks and months. The Chancellor has said that he will do whatever it takes. In my view, that means support for specific sectors, ​reform of the loans scheme, imaginative solutions to the debt problems facing the small and medium-sized enterprise sector, a commitment to building back better and a green recovery. It is in the interests of everyone across the country for the Government to act; if they do, they will have our support.

  • Ed Miliband – 2020 Speech on Business and Covid-19

    Ed Miliband – 2020 Speech on Business and Covid-19

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ed Miliband, the Labour MP for Doncaster North, in the House of Commons on 12 May 2020.

    Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and add my thanks to all the workers and businesses that have kept our country going during these past few weeks? I say to him that we do not underestimate the challenges of lifting lockdown in certain parts of the economy. We agree that it is in all our interests for it to happen if it can be done safely, and that there are difficult decisions confronting Government, businesses and workers, who have to adapt to these unprecedented circumstances. I also want to welcome a number of steps forward in the guidance published last night, which he has talked about in his statement. They do represent progress from previous proposals, and I also welcome the tone of his statement.

    However, I also say to the Secretary of State that what really matters to workers and businesses in these highly sensitive and difficult matters is proceeding in an orderly and judicious way. The confusion and mixed messages of the past 48 hours have been ill-advised and avoidable. Let me ask him six specific questions. First, on the impact of the Government’s change of emphasis on going back to work in phase 1, Ministers say that the reproduction rate of the disease—the R number—is currently between 0.5 and 0.9. How many extra people does he expect to go back to work as a result of the Government’s change of emphasis? What is the scientific advice about the impact on the R number?

    Secondly, we are being told that in our daily lives, outside our places of work, that we must not come within 2 metres of those from other households, for reasons I understand. I listened carefully to what the Secretary of State said, but for workplaces the overview document he has published asks for an observance of 2-metre distancing only “wherever possible”. If it is not possible, the only requirement is that employers should “look into” various mitigation measures. I understand that in some workplaces 2-metre distancing may not be possible, but can he explain why there is no requirement for mitigation if social distancing cannot be observed?

    Thirdly, on enforcement, the challenge is, as the Secretary of State said, not the vast majority of employers, who want to do the right thing, but the small minority who do not. I welcome £14 million more for the HSE budget, but it is a drop in the ocean compared with the £100 million of cuts over the past decade. Given the challenges of enforcement, will he discuss with the trade unions how ​their tens of thousands of health and safety reps could player a bigger and, I believe, constructive role in ensuring covid-19 compliance, including in non-unionised work- places?

    Fourthly, can the Business Secretary now provide an answer for parents who are being asked to go back to work tomorrow but are not deemed “essential” workers and therefore have nobody to look after their children, because they cannot send them to school or nursery? What are parents in those circumstances supposed to do?

    Fifthly, can the Secretary of State clarify the position on the 2.5 million workers who are deemed clinically extremely vulnerable and are advised to shield at home until at least the end of June?

    Currently, they have no automatic right to be furloughed and many have felt pressured to keep working. As workplaces reopen, the pressure will become greater. To protect their health and provide clarity, would it not make sense to place an obligation on employers to furlough these individuals if they cannot work from home?

    The chief medical officer, Chris Whitty, said at the press conference last night that the reopening of workplaces was dependent on whether they can be made safe for work. Can the Secretary of State confirm that workplaces that are not safe should not reopen tomorrow and that, by law, workers who have a reasonable belief that they will be in danger do not have to be at work?

    Finally, the Secretary of State will know that it is the highest paid workers who will generally carry on being able to work from home and lower paid workers who are being asked to go back to work. We also know from yesterday’s figures from the Office for National Statistics that, among men, construction workers have so far been more than twice as likely to die from covid-19 as the average member of the population. I know the Secretary of State will agree that working people are being asked to go back to work to help us all. Whatever the economic pressures, their health must be protected. They deserve to be safe. That is what the Government must take every action to ensure.

  • Ed Miliband – 2016 Speech on the EU Referendum

    edmiliband

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ed Miliband, the former Leader of the Opposition, on 22 March 2016.

    I want to start by echoing Alan’s words about the terror we have seen unfolding in Brussels.

    All my thoughts are with the victims and their families.

    It is a terrible reminder of the threats we face and the whole of our party will be feeling the deepest solidarity with the people of Belgium.

    I am speaking out today because of the importance of the EU referendum.

    I am doing so because I know some Labour voters feel ambivalent about it.

    Because this was a referendum called by David Cameron.

    Because the EU, like any institution, is not perfect and needs reform.

    And because there are so many other issues that concern us about the future of the country.

    We may not have sought this referendum, we may not have chosen its timing but this debate is too important to be one conducted between the centre-right, the right and the further-right.

    My speech today will be followed after Easter by our leader Jeremy Corbyn.

    And today I want to explain why this referendum should matter to us as Labour supporters and to every progressive in Britain.

    This is not a debate about whether we support David Cameron or who will lead the Tory Party after him.

    It is a debate about the future of our country.

    I want to send a very clear message to the nine million people who voted Labour at the last election:

    I believe the change you voted for and still want to see in Britain can only be achieved by us remaining in the European Union.

    And leaving would irreparably set back the cause of Labour politics.

    So I urge you to vote for Remain on June 23rd.

    And I want to say to all members of our party that we cannot sit this one out.

    We cannot sit it out when this choice is so fundamental to helping build the kind of country we want.

    We cannot sit it out when the decision of Labour voters will be so crucial to the outcome of this referendum.

    We are united, we can speak with one voice, and we need to do so.

    By contrast, the last few days have shown the Conservative Party is divided, disunited and at each other’s throats.

    But that makes it all the more important that we set out our case on Europe.

    The civil war in the Conservative Party cannot and must not obscure the central question in this referendum:

    Are we more likely to secure social justice and progressive change inside the EU or outside?

    The answer is resoundingly that we should vote Remain.

    This is my case:

    First, the problems of the 21st century need co-operation across borders more than ever.

    Second, yes, the EU needs to change to make it the more progressive union it needs to be – but that cannot be an argument for leaving.

    Third, we need to expose the real agenda of most of those who would Leave –a direct route to a more unequal, unfair, unjust Britain.

    My argument begins with the most basic of all Labour principles.

    It unites Keir Hardie and Tony Blair, Clement Attlee and Jeremy Corbyn.

    At heart our principle as a party is one of collectivism: the idea that we achieve more together than we can alone.

    It says it on our party card.

    It is true in Britain as we think about our great achievements produced by collective struggle and collective advance: trade unions, workers’ rights, the NHS, the minimum wage.

    And it has always been the case that we have applied that principle internationally too: from the Spanish civil war, to the fight against the Nazis, to post war reconstruction.

    But the unique thing about the 21st century is that this principle of international co-operation applies to so many more of the problems we face.

    Think of any of the great challenges we care about in Britain 2016, and I will tell you why it is essential we stay in the EU.

    Tackling inequality is the cause that brought me and so many of us into the Labour Party.

    Then think about the different ways we need to tackle it.

    We need to trade across borders to ensure good jobs and keep prices low.

    That’s why we need to be in the European Union.

    We need to make companies pay their taxes but one country can’t do it alone.

    That’s why we need to be in the European Union.

    We need to guarantee basic rights for workers but one country will find it much harder to do it on its own.

    In a world where countries can be played off against each other, we need to co-ordinate across borders to make it happen.

    That’s why we need to be in the European Union.

    And don’t just take my word for it, look at the rights that have been delivered: four weeks paid holiday, better maternity leave, the 48 hour week.

    It didn’t happen by chance, it happened because of our collective power in the European Union.

    We need to cope with the threat of global stagnation, not with continued austerity but a different response.

    But once again one country cannot do it on its own.

    That’s why we need to be in the European Union.

    Then take the most important threat of all; climate change.

    It just isn’t realistic to think one country can do this on its own.

    Britain is about one per cent of global emissions, the EU ten per cent.

    Far from us being smaller, weaker and less significant in the EU the opposite is true.

    We walk taller, prouder and have more influence inside not outside.

    Membership of the EU has cleaned up our beaches, improved our water supplies and without the EU we would not even be debating the silent killer that is air pollution.

    It is only EU legislation that is forcing any action from this government.

    And then take the wider world in which we live.

    The high ideals that led to the setting up of the EU after two world wars – are more relevant than ever

    How do we deal with global threats and challenges?

    Only by acting together not alone.

    So mine is an argument rooted deep in Labour values of solidarity and co-operation.

    And it is not based on the idea that our country doesn’t need to change – far from it.

    We need to tackle inequality, turn away from austerity, make companies pay their taxes, confront the threat of climate change, and work internationally for a just world.

    But the best way, indeed the only way we can effectively do it is by remaining in and not leaving the European Union.

    The EU is an essential tool to tackle the great injustices of the 21st century.

    But as I said at the outset, the EU is not perfect.

    Some people on the Left look at what has happened in the European Union in recent years and see quite a lot they don’t like: austerity, the remoteness of some EU institutions, the response to the migration crisis, the proposed trade agreement with the US.

    Some Labour voters worry about free movement of workers.

    And in particular, what it means for them.

    Let me confront head on both sets of concerns.

    To the first set of concerns, I say, let’s not take the flaws in the implementation of a great principle and conclude that cooperation between countries is somehow the problem.

    Because it isn’t.

    The idea that we could confront the great causes of the 21st century outside the European Union is simply a fantasy.

    We can’t end centre-right austerity across Europe on our own.

    We can’t tackle climate change on our own.

    We can’t make companies pay their taxes on our own.

    We can’t solve the refugee crisis on our own.

    We can’t confront any of the great injustices on our own.

    Nothing in our values, our history, our beliefs tells us otherwise.

    I ask you – how would we explain to our Socialist partners in France, Germany, Sweden, Spain that we had decided to abandon our principles of internationalism and go our own way?

    The Labour party with our proud history.

    They would look at us with disbelief and dismay.

    They would ask why we are abandoning them and their attempt to build a centre-left Europe.

    And they would be right to do so.

    The answer is not to leave or hedge our bets, but instead implement a compelling progressive reform agenda for Britain and Europe.

    We know the areas where we need change.

    We must champion the opening up of EU institutions.

    We must make the EU the powerhouse for tackling corporate tax avoidance.

    We should be persuaders for the EU stepping up on the environment and not shrinking back.

    And on the trade agreement with America, say ‘yes’ to trade across borders, but say ‘no’ to undemocratic, corporate dominated decision-making.

    This kind of reform agenda is not only necessary but is in my view, also possible.

    As far as the second set of worries is concerned, as a constituency MP, I hear it a lot.

    The workers brought in and used to try and undercut wages.

    The loopholes in rules which seem to mean unfair treatment.

    The exploitation of migrant workers to undermine terms and conditions.

    This is a profound issue.

    But the answer is not to leave the European Union.

    Because think about how much our workers would lose out from the end of the single market and all that means.

    And even if we were to stay within the single market, but outside the EU, the experience of Norway shows, you end up being subject to free movement anyway – but having no say over the rules.

    The real answer is to do a far better job of tackling that exploitation here at home.

    Exploitation that this Government chooses not to act on.

    Exploitation that is nothing to do with Europe and everything to do with political will.

    We can end the abuse of agency workers rules.

    We can end the rogue landlords.

    We can change the rules in Europe to counter the undermining of collective agreements.

    All this is possible.

    It doesn’t need us to leave Europe.

    It needs a government willing to make it happen.

    So the answer is reform and remain – not leave.

    And as we make our positive case, we need to be clear about the real agenda of most of those who would have us leave.

    There are honourable Labour colleagues who have been consistent advocates of Leave.

    I leave them aside in this.

    But the vast majority of those who would Leave are not trying to build a fairer, more just Britain as we understand it.

    They may play on people’s concerns about standards of living but just think of what they believe.

    They are people who are anti-regulation wherever it comes from, who are anti-workers’ rights wherever they come from, who are sceptical about laws on the environment wherever they come from.

    To be fair, that is because they have a consistent position.

    When I say that the EU is a necessary tool against the power of corporations, they shake their heads.

    They do not want to counter that corporate power.

    Iain Duncan Smith in his maiden speech as an MP lauded the opt out from the social chapter.

    Boris Johnson has repeatedly said he wanted to create a narrow relationship with Europe simply focussed on the single market.

    Nigel Farage opposes protections for workers not simply because of Europe but because of what he believes.

    Now these people may differ in some respects but they are united in their vision of a free market, low regulated, race to the bottom offshore Britain.

    They believe low tax, low regulation is the way we succeed.

    You can hear it in their speeches and see it in their agenda and even read it in their articles in the Daily Telegraph.

    Think of the vision of Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, Iain Duncan-Smith for the country.

    It is not my vision, it is not your vision and it is not the vision of nine million Labour voters either.

    If Britain left the European Union, it would not serve a progressive, optimistic agenda.

    It would serve a reactionary, pessimistic agenda.

    Tax avoiders want to divide country from country to drive down tax rates.

    Polluters want to turn country against country in a race to the bottom on standards.

    Russia and those who disagree with us want to divide Europe.

    Outside the EU that is what we would be exposed to.

    Our strategic influence would be diminished, our country would be weaker and our capacity to achieve fairness and justice would be shrunken.

    And in the end this is about the character of our country.

    The fundamental question being asked now in Europe as in America is are we stronger as a nation when we build bridges or build walls?

    Are we a people who choose to face our problems linking arms with our friends or hunkering down on our own?

    Where the little Englanders look at the channel and see a moat, Britain’s success has been built for centuries by those who saw not a moat but sea lanes, shipping, the means of bringing our peoples together not dividing them.

    That is what my parents found when they got refuge here.

    They built a life for themselves and their family.

    They made a contribution to the country.

    Theirs was a life built from optimism out of the darkness and pessimism of the second world war.

    And I believe we are the optimists in this campaign.

    Optimists that we can conquer problems of inequality together.

    That we can tackle climate change together.

    That we can build social justice together.

    That we can tackle the threats the world faces together.

    Our opponents are not the optimists.

    They share one thing in common

    They are the pessimists.

    Pessimists that we can work with others to build a better Britain.

    Pessimists that these great causes like inequality and climate change can be tackled.

    Pessimists that a more hopeful, internationalist future lies ahead.

    We have always been the optimists.

    So my message to you is to go out and win this referendum heart and soul.

    Let’s recognise that we cannot put our feet up and see what happens

    We cannot as party members be spectators or bystanders in this campaign.

    Let’s understand the obvious fact: that those who turn up and vote will decide this referendum

    Let’s be for remain not with apathy but enthusiasm.

    Let’s win this referendum not simply with the arguments for remain but the arguments for how we want to change Britain and change Europe.

    I want a more equal, a more just future.

    We can only get it by remaining in the European Union.

    Let’s vote to remain and then let’s elect a Labour government that can change Britain and change Europe.

  • Ed Miliband – 2014 Speech on Condition of Britain Report

    edmiliband

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ed Miliband, the Leader of the Opposition, at the launch of the IPPR Condition of Britain Report. The speech was made on 19th June 2014.

    Along with Rachel Reeves and the Head of Labour’s Policy Review, Jon Cruddas, I am delighted to be here with you launching the IPPR’s Condition of Britain report.

    For years, IPPR has done brilliant work to help us respond to the challenges Britain faces.

    And they have done it again with this important report.

    So I want to thank the report’s authors Kayte Lawton, Graeme Cooke and Nick Pearce for the work they have done.

    And all those – voluntary group leaders, campaigners and community organisers – many of whom are here today who helped IPPR with their work.

    The issue that motivates this report is the same one that brought me into politics.

    A belief that the deep inequalities of income, wealth and power in our country are damaging, wrong and can be tackled.

    In each generation, we must seek to tackle these inequalities.

    And today this belief means there is one question, over-riding all others, that matters to the future of this country.

    It is a question that goes beyond one party, one government or one election.

    It is a question that countries all around the world are grappling with:

    How can we make the country work not just for a few at the top but for the security and success of ordinary families?

    When I went round the country in the recent elections, so many people told me the country didn’t work for them.

    They were talking about the basic fundamentals of work, family and community.

    Things many people at the top of our society just take for granted.

    The basic bargain that if you work hard there would be a degree of security, an ability to make ends meet, has been broken.

    Low paid, low skill, insecure work that doesn’t give people any sense of fulfilment: that is the reality for millions of people.

    That is not good enough for me.

    And it is not good enough for Britain.

    For the first time in generations, parents from all types of background, fear that their children will do worse than them.

    That is not good enough for me.

    And it is not good enough for Britain.

    And all round this country people who are doing the right thing don’t seem to be rewarded anymore.

    That is not good enough for me.

    And it is not good enough for Britain.

    For my Party, in everything we do, in every reform we make, in every decision we take, in opposition and in government, our job is to tackle this challenge.

    And no vested interest, no orthodoxy, should stop us changing the country for this cause.

    The importance of this report is that it shows there is a distinctive and compelling answer to addressing this issue, in particular when it comes to our welfare state.

    This report shows we can change things at a time of scarcity.

    Because we know the next Labour government won’t have money to spend.

    It starts with work.

    And a welfare system that helps all our young people to succeed.

    For decades we have known about the problem of young people with no or poor qualifications entering adulthood, facing little chance of being able to get on.

    But it hasn’t been addressed.

    Indeed the perversity of the system means that the one thing we most discourage those young people from doing is getting the skills they need for a decent career.

    Because we tell them that they should sign on for benefits not sign up for proper training.

    And we say, at the same time, to those who go to university that they are entitled to financial support to improve their skills and qualifications.

    There can be no better example of a divided country which seems to value the 50 per cent of young people who go to university and fails to value the untapped talents of the 50 per cent of young people who don’t.

    It is about people like Danny who I talked to yesterday.

    I asked him whether the Job Centre had been good enough at getting him in to training.

    He said it had been completely useless.

    And that’s because of the rules and the system.

    How can he have faith in the system when that happens?

    It is no wonder that people feel that politics doesn’t serve them.

    It is not good enough for me.

    And it is not good enough for Britain.

    We can’t succeed as a country with unskilled young people going from benefits to low paid work and back again without proper skills.

    Because it doesn’t give business the productive workforce they need.

    And it costs the taxpayer billions of pounds in extra welfare spending and lower productivity.

    So we’re going to change it.

    What the proposals in this report show is that we can address these issues and reform welfare in a way that is progressive not punitive.

    And a Labour government will get young people to sign up for training, not sign on for benefits.

    So for 18 to 21 year olds, we will replace Job Seekers’ Allowance with a new youth allowance.

    An allowance dependent on young people being in training

    And targeted at those who need it most.

    These are the right principles:

    Britain’s young people who don’t have the skills they need for work should be in training not on benefits.

    We should abolish the limit on training that has for decades held young people back.

    And to pay for these changes in tough times, we should say young people will be entitled to financial support only if they really need it.

    Assessed on the basis of parental income, as we do for those young people who go to university.

    This is the right thing to do and it doesn’t cost money, it saves money.

    So with this proposal and others, this report says to those worried about work in Britain that there are answers.

    And we can restore the link between hard work and reward.

    And to properly reward hard work and effort, we need contribution to be at the heart of our welfare system too.

    We talk about the problem of people getting something for nothing.

    And we are right to do so.

    But there is a problem that politicians rarely talk about of people getting nothing for something.

    How many times have I heard people say: “for years and years, I paid in and then when the time came and I needed help I got nothing out”?

    Rewarding contribution was a key principle of the Beveridge Report.

    And it is a key intuition of the British people.

    But it is a principle that has been forgotten by governments of both parties.

    Aside from pensions, less than one tenth of social security spending now goes on entitlements that are based on contribution.

    We should not allow the contributory principle to recede still further.

    Instead, we should strengthen it.

    That’s why as one example, the next Labour government will change the way Job Seekers’ Allowance works.

    To make sure that someone who has been working for years and years, paying in to the system, gets more help if they lose their job, than someone who has been working for just a couple of years.

    And we will pay for it not by spending more money in social security.

    But by extending the length of time people need to have worked to qualify.

    And this report faces up to the tough reality that my party understands.

    We won’t be able to ensure the security and success of ordinary families in the years ahead with higher benefit spending.

    Instead, we must do so by tackling the problems at source.

    That’s why we have set out proposals to tackle low pay, increasing the minimum wage.

    Saving money on benefits.

    Supporting childcare to help mums and dads get back to work.

    Reducing the costs of worklessness.

    And this report shows also how we can start to tackle a historic problem in Britain, a problem which has developed over decades: a housing benefit bill going up and up and investment in housing itself falling further and further.

    Higher housing benefit spending is not a sign of progressive success.

    It is a sign of failure.

    And again in this report shows the right vision for how we can start to turn this round.

    Moving from benefits to bricks by empowering local authorities to use the money they save on housing benefit and reinvest it to help build homes.

    And this report is right also that if we are to tackle the generational challenge our country faces of inequality, we cannot do so simply by pulling levers at the centre.

    We can’t make the country work for people again by relying on Whitehall and Westminster.

    We can only do it by devolving power.

    Whether it is getting work for our young people.

    Creating the jobs of the future.

    Supporting business.

    And in public services:

    Giving more powers to parents in shaping the future of their schools.

    And patients in shaping the future of their hospitals.

    People-powered public services.

    That is why devolving power is a key part of this report and other reports that are being published in the coming months.

    Anyone looking to bring change to Britain today is confronted with a huge problem.

    People’s desire for change is enormous, just as it was at the time of the Beveridge Report in the 1940s.

    But their belief that this change is possible has been profoundly shaken.

    There is a deep sense of pessimism about whether Westminster politics, or anyone within a million miles of it, has any of the answers.

    People see a country that doesn’t work for them and hasn’t done so for a long time.

    And they believe nobody really gets it.

    And it is not just that people think the problems are huge, it is that they don’t believe they can be solved because of the financial challenges the country faces.

    I know we must meet the cause of our time, the cause I came into politics for, while confronting a fiscal situation the like of which we have not seen for generations.

    The result of a financial crash the like of which none of us have ever seen.

    What this report shows is that we do have answers.

    Distinctive answers that are right for this time.

    Above all the situation means we can’t just hope to make do and mend.

    We can’t just borrow and spend money to paper over the cracks.

    The old way of doing things won’t work anymore.

    Instead, we need big, far-reaching reform.

    Which means big changes, not big spending.

    Reform that can reshape our economy, so that hard work is rewarded again.

    Rebuild our society, so that the next generation does better than the last.

    And change our country so that the British people feel it is run according to their values.

    That kind of reform is going to be tough.

    No one said it would be easy.

    I know that.

    And you know that.

    But it is a cause worth fighting for.

    It is the way we change Britain.

    That is our mission.

    That’s what the Condition of Britain teaches us.

    And I congratulate IPPR on your report.

  • Ed Miliband – 2014 Speech to Labour Friends of Israel

    edmiliband

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ed Miliband, the Leader of the Opposition, to the Labour Friends of Israel on 17th June 2014.

    Friends, it is once again a privileged to have the opportunity to address the annual LFI lunch.

    I would like to thank everyone from LFI for organising today’s lunch, and I am sure you would like to join me in thanking Sir David Garrard and Isaac Kaye for helping make it happen.

    I am delighted that Ambassador Daniel Taub is with us today and I would also like to take this opportunity as we approach the first anniversary of his induction to say how much I have admired the humanity and generosity of spirit shown in his tenure by Chief Rabbi Mirvis.

    I am proud to be a supporter of LFI.

    You play a vital role in promoting Israel and passionately campaigning for a two state solution for two peoples.

    We are committed to working with LFI to further deepen the relationship between my party and the Israeli Labour Party led by Isaac Herzog, who I was delighted to welcome to my home during his recent visit.

    I would also like to play tribute to Anne McGuire who has done an excellent job in chairing LFI over the last year.

    I also want to welcome Adrian Cohen to his new position as chair of LFI and I am sure we all want to show our appreciation for the tireless efforts of Jennifer Gerber who joined us on our recent trip to Israel.

    Let me say before I get into the main part of my remarks, I am sure all of our thoughts today are with the 3 kidnapped Israeli teenagers, Naftali Frenkel, Gilad Shaar, and Eyal Yifrach and their families. We all profoundly hope for their speedy and safe return. And it is a measure of this community’s concern that on Sunday afternoon the Chief Rabbi led a service attended by over a thousand people to pray for their safe release.

    Today I want to talk to you about my reflections following my recent trip to Israel.

    And what it meant to me as a Jew, as a son, a grandson and a father.

    And what it means for Labour in government and our approach to Israel.

    We travelled out on the El Al flight LY316 three days before Passover.

    Justine and I had not entirely anticipated something, which I am sure will be more familiar to so many in this room, and Chief Rabbi I am sure in particular to many of your congregants – that every other passenger on the plane seemed to know each other.

    And it wasn’t long before complete strangers were coming up to Justine and me to ask the same question – “So where will you both be for Seder?”

    On our trip we would witness the candour of Israelis and the willingness to speak their minds.

    I particularly enjoyed the moment at a briefing given by a group of Knesset Parliamentarians, one of whom, in a state of complete exasperation, turned to me and referring to his colleague said, “Mr Miliband, please don’t listen to him he has no idea what he is talking about”.

    It makes the Parliamentary Labour Party appear positively benign.

    As we touched down on that pre-Passover plane, it immediately took me back to being a young boy and travelling to Israel for the first time.

    For the next two days, I would have the most vivid reminders of the deep roots that I have in Israel: like visiting my cousins at the Nachshonim Kibbutz, where I had picked oranges as a child, and having dinner with my extended family in Tel Aviv, arguing and debating, with love and affection.

    And there were three particular things which made this visit not only an official trip but a deeply personal journey:

    First, being approach by the assistant to the President of the Hebrew University, who said to me: “My grandmother was in hiding in the same Belgian village as your grandmother”.

    I can truly say to you, that experience would be unlikely to happen to me in any other country in the world.

    That is just one of the reasons why Israel has special meaning for me and a special place in my heart.

    Second, my visit to Yad Vashem.

    A moment of reflection, mourning and discovery.

    Reflection on the loss of so many millions of Jews.

    Mourning for so many members of my family that were lost.

    And discovery. As I left Yad Vashem I was handed a collection of documents about my family including new information, 70 years later, about what happened to my grandfather and where he perished.

    It was an extraordinary feeling, so many years after he died, to make new discoveries about his death.

    The new Yad Vashem tells an overwhelming story of the greatest single stain on the conscience of humanity – the Holocaust.

    But it also tells, in a way that I was not expecting, a story of life; the richness and the colour of life for European

    Jews before 1939. And of course, it also tells how Israel became a miraculous affirmation of life in the face of death.

    Finally, I would also say that it was a joy for me to have Justine with me on my trip to Israel. And for her to have a chance to meet my family.

    She was moved and delighted to be there.

    And I look forward to travelling to Israel with my children, Daniel and Sam, when they are older.

    So these are some personal reflections about my trip.

    But I did not simply go as a Jew returning to his family’s roots, but also as someone who wants to be the next Prime Minister of this country.

    So I also want to reflect on the lessons I learn as the person wanting to do that job.

    And my theme, the promise I want to make to you today, is about the priority the next Labour government will attach to its relationship with Israel.

    Because of its importance to the Jews of Britain, because of the democracy it represents, because of its economic lessons, and because of the importance of a Middle East peace process for the stability of the world.

    I specifically chose this as one of my first official overseas visits because of all these reasons and more.

    The priority that I attach to our relationship with Israel, is not just a promise for Opposition, but a commitment for government.

    And today I want to tell you where that sense of priority leads me on the major issues that matter.

    Israel: economic power with social challenges

    As LFI has repeatedly argued, the world needs to get to know Israel better for its economic achievements, as well as its security and diplomatic challenges.

    And what struck me is that while Israel is an amazing economic powerhouse, it also faces the common challenges of inequality that so many countries around the world are wrestling with.

    The Israel I experienced on my trip was one that is seizing the future: like the young people at Hebrew University and the thrilling innovation and entrepreneurship of new and high tech businesses.

    Israel is a major world innovator and I was inspired by the work of the high tech hub, organised by the British Embassy.

    We learnt some of the interesting lessons about Israel’s success: the rate of graduate entry, immigration bringing new skills, the availability of venture capital and the collaboration between private and public enterprise.

    I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the excellent work of our brilliant Ambassador Matthew Gould.

    And I can tell you that a major priority for a Labour Government would be to further collaborate, building stronger working relationships between British and Israeli companies.

    And yet for all the innovation, and economic success, it is impossible to ignore the security challenges that Israel faces.

    Indeed, they are an economic issue, holding back investment and preventing Israel from achieving even greater things economically and socially.

    And they are not simply issues for Israel, because we all have an interest in a stable and secure Middle East.

    Visiting Israel brings home the security challenges that it faces very starkly.

    We visited Sderot and I saw the rockets that had been fired from Gaza and landed in that town.

    I heard from the Mayor about the reinforcements against rockets they had to build for their local schools.

    And Justine and I met children, no older than my own, who don’t get the luxury of playing outside as ours do, but are assigned to an inside bunker playground.

    And we met the parents of Daniel Viflic, who had been killed in a rocket attack just before Passover in 2011.

    He had simply been visiting his grandmother.

    The Viflics are the bravest people, but nothing can change the grief and loss they face.

    And after 10 years of continuing rocket and mortar attacks on Israeli civilians from Gaza, of course there remains deep concern amongst Israeli citizens about their security.

    So attaching the right priority to our relationship with Israel means fully understanding its security concerns and the threat to its people.

    Therefore, we must ensure Israel’s security and right to protect itself.

    With the unfolding situation in Iraq, we are also reminded of the security situation that Israel faces beyond its borders.

    Iraq is today facing fundamental threats to its integrity, security and stability.

    ISIS is a violent and brutal military group posing a threat to the entire region. As we have seen in a horrifying way in the last few days.

    Their advances in Iraq and their growing base in northern Syria should be seen by all as extremely grave developments.

    As Douglas Alexander said yesterday the priority now must be to promote the political integrity of Iraq, to help the Iraqi government through support and advice and do everything we can to provide humanitarian assistance.

    Nobody should be in any doubt about the seriousness of the situation and the priority it demands from the world.

    Given all of our interests in stability in the region it is right also to be seeking dialogue with other countries in the wider area.

    Which brings us to Iran.

    I want to be clear about Labour’s position: we are under no illusions about the Iranian regime.

    It has supplied thousands of missiles to Hamas and Hezbollah which have been used against Israel.

    If Iran continues its illegal nuclear programme and develops a weapon, it poses a grave threat to Israel and to the stability of the region.

    That is why the world has such a strong interest in preventing this happening.

    The interim agreement brokered by Cathy Ashton is a step forward. We should take nothing for granted about Iran’s behaviour but that route represents by far the best hope for avoiding what we all fear: Iran with nuclear weapons.

    But while it is absolutely right to remain deeply sceptical about the nature of the regime, we support the Government’s decision today to reopen the Embassy as a means of engagement.

    All of us are conscious, especially at this moment of the instability of this region. Not just in Iraq but also the unfolding tragedy in Syria and the consequences that is having for neighbouring states.

    For us that reinforces the importance of a successful peace process.

    Our trip to Israel turned out to be just prior to the collapse of the talks.

    We can all see the considerable challenges to the peace process. And there is a growing sense as to what those challenges are.

    Settlement building in the occupied territories is a significant threat to a negotiated agreement.

    The daily reality of all this was brought home on our visit.

    We had the chance to visit a Bedouin camp in the Occupied Territories.

    People there lived difficult, impoverished lives, and are faced with the potential threat of eviction.

    As we heard during our trip, the real fear is that settlement activity makes the viability of a two state solution more challenging.

    And those significant challenges to the peace process include the role of Hamas, not just its failure to renounce violence against Israel but to accept its very right to exist.

    These deep concerns about time running out represents reasons for pessimism.

    They lead some to say that support for a two-state solution should be abandoned.

    I don’t agree.

    After all what is the alternative?

    So we should step up, not abandon, our support for a two state solution.

    We should do so deeply conscious of the pressure of time.

    But having set out the reasons for pessimism, there are reasons for optimism too.

    Most conflicts are unresolved because we do not know what an agreement looks like.

    What came home to me on this trip was reasonable people on both sides have a sense of what a resolution looks like.

    Two states for two peoples, based on 1967 lines with mutually agreed land swaps, with Israel as the homeland for the Jewish people and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people, and with each state enjoying self-determination, security and mutual recognition.

    We know that compromises in key areas must be made on both sides.

    We must also do nothing that will get in the way of peace.

    So we are clear that the threat of boycotts of Israel is the wrong response. We do and we will resolutely oppose the isolation of Israel. And my party does so.

    No one in my party either should question Israel’s right to exist.

    And what is our role in all this? As friends of Israel.

    We must, as LFI is, be persuaders for peace and the two state solution.

    We can’t deliver peace unless both sides in the conflict want it.

    The international community can set high expectations of both sides.

    That is what Secretary Kerry has sought to do in an outstanding and brilliant way, winning the trust of both sides.

    That will be how a future Labour government approaches the peace process, passionate and engaged in a successful outcome.

    I am reminded of the words of Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin used twenty years ago next month at a joint session of both houses of Congress:

    “We all love the same children, weep the same tears, hate the same enmity and pray for reconciliation. Peace has no borders…here is where we were born. Here is where we created a nation. Here we forged a haven for the persecuted and built a model of a democratic country. But we are not alone here on this soil, in this land we have neighbours, the Palestinian people – we who have seen you in your difficulties, we saw you for generations; we who have killed and been killed are walking beside you now toward a common future and we want to be good neighbours.”

    So let me make this pledge today: in that spirit, we stand with Israelis and Palestinians in their pursuit of peace.

    It was meeting extraordinary Israelis and Palestinians that made my recent trip an extraordinary journey.

    And a complete privilege for me.

    The Jewish community in Britain is also extraordinary: civic minded people of the charity world, dynamic business people, committed public servants, people from every walk of Jewish life with deep love and affection for Britain.

    Over these four years, I have learnt a lot from you.

    And I hope you have found me willing to listen and learn.

    I want you to know that if I become Prime Minister in less than a year’s time, I will be proud to do so as a friend of Israel, a Jew and, most of all, someone who feels so proud to be part of the community gathered here today.