Tag: Rachel Reeves

  • Rachel Reeves – 2020 Comments on Privatisation During Pandemic

    Rachel Reeves – 2020 Comments on Privatisation During Pandemic

    The comments made by Rachel Reeves, the Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, on 6 August 2020.

    The Conservatives have consistently tried to privatise throughout this pandemic and turn to a small number of corporations instead of using public health expertise.

    The Government’s decision to hand SERCO millions for contact tracing has been an expensive mistake in comparison to what can be achieved by local councils and established public health approaches.

    Ministers should swallow their pride, learn lessons and choose to better support the public sector instead of SERCO’s shareholders.

  • Rachel Reeves – 2020 Comments on Customs Lorry Park in Kent

    Rachel Reeves – 2020 Comments on Customs Lorry Park in Kent

    The comments made by Rachel Reeves, the Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, on 30 July 2020.

    This giant lorry park will stand as a symbol of the Government’s failure to plan properly for Brexit, with so little achieved in four years and only five months to go before the end of the transition period.

    Ministers need to explain how much this park will cost and how it will operate, and reassure residents who understandably fear it will make their lives a misery.

    When Boris Johnson talked about relaxing planning laws, no one thought he meant turning part of the Garden of England into a lorry park the size of about 15 football pitches.

    The Prime Minister promised an ‘oven-ready’ deal and said there would be extra cash for major projects. No one imagined that meant concreting over the countryside to build a lorry park.

  • Rachel Reeves – 2020 Speech on End of EU Transition Period

    Rachel Reeves – 2020 Speech on End of EU Transition Period

    The text of the speech made by Rachel Reeves, the Labour MP for Leeds West, in the House of Commons on 13 July 2020.

    I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. I associate myself with his comments about Dave Prentis, a great trade union leader who is always fighting for a better deal for public sector workers.

    It is vital that businesses and jobs are supported and that the oven-ready deal that the country was promised is delivered on this year, yet frankly many of us are worried about whether the oven was even turned on. Alarm bells have been ringing in the Cabinet this past week, expressed by the Secretary of State for International Trade in her extraordinary letter to the Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer written on 8 July. The letter presents a picture of chaos, complacency and confusion right at the top of government. Let me highlight to the House those concerns.

    First, the Trade Secretary expresses concern that the UK will be vulnerable to a World Trade Organisation challenge. Will the Government publish their advice and analysis of risk and cost to the Government of such a challenge?

    Secondly, the Trade Secretary highlights that there are EU-facing ports where the infrastructure to implement controls does not currently exist. Will the Minister give the country and, indeed, his Cabinet colleague reassurance by publishing all relevant delivery plans, land purchases and rental agreements, with timescales and risks—and not just for the port of Dover? The Labour party wants to see British firms exporting. We do not want to see their goods stuck at ports or, indeed, in lorry parks.

    Thirdly, the Trade Secretary is concerned in her letter that traders from the rest of the world could export their goods to the UK through the EU and, in her words,

    “undermine the effective operation of our trade policy”

    and undermine the collection of tariffs due. How will the Government prevent smugglers from exploiting the phased-in approach to the border? What is the estimated loss to tariffs as a result of the six-month delay to UK border checks on imports travelling through the European Union?

    Fourthly, on Northern Ireland, the Trade Secretary said that the digital delivery of the dual tariff system in Northern Ireland is a high risk and that HMRC is planning to apply the EU tariff as a default from 1 January. She adds:

    “This is very concerning as this may call into question NI’s place in the UK’s customs territory.”

    Those are her words. What risk do the Government attach to that? What reassurance can the Minister provide that the commitments made in the Government’s command paper on Northern Ireland will be fully honoured, and why do we have to wait until the end of this month for the details on Northern Ireland to be published? It is all very well announcing a multi-million pound advertising campaign, but if the right hon. Gentleman cannot persuade his bestest friend in Cabinet that everything is going according to plan, it is hardly surprising that the country is anxious and confused.

    A month ago, the Prime Minister said that there was “no reason” that a deal could not be reached by the end of this month. Will the Minister update us on where we are in terms of being on track to meet that deadline, with a deal agreed in the next fortnight? The Government have previously estimated that there will be up to 400 million customs declarations per year. HMRC said that they would cost £32 each, adding up to a staggering £12.8 billion bill for business. Does the Minister have any updated assessment of those numbers and the cost to UK firms?

    It is also reported that HMRC is not planning to test the systems until November—a handful of weeks before they are needed. Will the Minister explain why those checks are not taking place sooner, and will he outline what recent engagement the Government have had with Scottish and Welsh Governments on state aid policy prior to the announcements today? More than half of UK trade will experience greater delays, costs and barriers, so what percentage of UK trade will enjoy easier trading terms on 1 January next year?

    The best way to help all businesses to prepare is, of course, to agree a deal with the European Union on the terms that we were told to expect. That means no fees, charges, tariffs or quantitative restrictions across all sectors. It does not mean, as we heard in the statement today, customs, physical checks, export declarations, a commodity code, and economic operator restrictions and identification, and it certainly does not mean a living document with guidance that changes day by day.

    I am sure the Minister will agree that we should never make promises that we cannot keep, so will he guarantee that the promises made to UK businesses and workers in the Conservative party manifesto in December last year will be honoured, because they are not consistent with the statement that he has delivered this afternoon? Last week, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stood at that Dispatch Box and said that he will do all he can to support British business. Today, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster stands at the same Dispatch Box and is wrapping those businesses in red tape and sending them to a super-sized lorry park in Dover. For the sake of all workers worried about their jobs and all business owners anxious about their future, we need the Government to get this right. I am not convinced that today’s statement does that.

  • Rachel Reeves – 2020 Comments on Leaked Liz Truss Letter

    Rachel Reeves – 2020 Comments on Leaked Liz Truss Letter

    Below is the text of the comments made by Rachel Reeves, the Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Shadow Cabinet Office Minister, on 11 July 2020.

    This leaked letter lifts the lid on a growing sense of chaos and confusion between Cabinet Ministers at the Government’s complacent approach to vital preparations ahead of 31 December.

    There is growing alarm from the business communities in Northern Ireland and increasingly in Britain that Ministers aren’t being entirely open about the state of preparations.

    These issues will affect countless businesses and jobs and are simply far too important to be left to written correspondence like this. This extraordinary letter deserves answers, not just given to the House of Commons, but to the industries and people who stand to be affected if the Government gets this badly wrong.

  • Rachel Reeves – 2020 Speech on the UK-EU Negotiations

    Rachel Reeves – 2020 Speech on the UK-EU Negotiations

    Below is the text of the speech made by Rachel Reeves, the Labour MP for Leeds West, in the House of Commons on 16 June 2020.

    Four years ago today, I was at Leeds General Infirmary with Jo Cox’s parents and her sister. I will never forget that day and all that we lost. Today we remember Jo and remind ourselves of her values and all that she stood for.

    I thank the Minister for an advance copy of his statement today. Following the meeting on Friday, both the UK and the EU confirmed that there is not going to ​be an extension of negotiations beyond the end of this year, which puts the focus firmly on both sides to secure the deal that they describe in the political declaration. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well what a calamity leaving only on World Trade Organisation terms would be for our country. Last year, the Minister told the Oxford farming conference that small farms would be hardest hit by the barriers and tariffs of trading on WTO terms. That is on top of what many farmers fear from a lack of safeguards from cheap imports with lower environmental and animal welfare standards.

    This is not an isolated incident of uncertainty. In the automotive industry, Nissan says:

    “We’ve modelled every possible ramification of Brexit and the fact remains that our entire business…is not sustainable in the event of WTO tariffs”.

    Similar warnings have been issued by Vauxhall’s owners about their future presence in Ellesmere Port. The Minister has made clear in the past why it is important to secure a deal, so will he explain again today why a deal is better than leaving on WTO terms?

    The Prime Minister has staked his own authority on having an “oven-ready” deal, but in his statement the Minister said that we wanted to intensify talks in July and find, if possible, an early understanding of principles underlying any agreement. That does not sound like an oven-ready deal to me, and is a cause of great concern for all of us. The ingredients of such a deal were published, and the country expects them to be delivered.

    The Minister has referred today to his manifesto pledges to end the transition period at the end of this year, so may I remind him of some other pledges in that manifesto? First,

    “no tariffs, fees, charges or quantitative restrictions”

    across all sectors. Will the Government give UK industries and workforces peace of mind and prevent their business models from rupturing in the coming months? Late on Thursday, the Government published a written statement indicating a U-turn on border controls, perhaps recognising that they simply have not done enough to prepare for new rules that they wanted to introduce. That does nothing, however, to help British businesses that export to the UK. The Minister said in his statement that the Government would manage the commitments required, but he cannot make that pledge unilaterally. How will the Government help exporters, who will face those rules from day one?

    Secondly, the Conservative manifesto told voters that the Brexit deal would safeguard workers’ rights, consumer and environmental protections. Does the Minister agree that it is essential that the UK defends those standards in all trade negotiations with other countries? People want to see the UK win a race to the top, not be forced into a race to the bottom, overseen by an overseas president.

    Thirdly, we were promised a

    “broad, comprehensive and balanced security partnership.”

    There is no greater priority than keeping the British people safe and secure. On 3 June, with regard to European criminal records data, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) asked for

    “reassurance that as from 1 January 2021, the UK will have access to the quantity and quality of data that it currently has”. —[Official Report, 3 June 2020; Vol. 676, c. 846.]

    Will the Minister provide an answer? Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister was unable to do so.​
    Fourthly, we were told that whatever happens, the UK will respect the Good Friday agreement. Many Northern Irish businesses, including manufacturing firms, have integrated supply chains across the United Kingdom. Unite and GMB members working at Bombardier in Belfast are reeling from the prospect of more redundancies following the covid-19 crisis. We need to stem the tide of job losses, not exacerbate them. Firms in Northern Ireland need to know the real-world detail of the business environment in which they will be operating, the precise checks and controls that they need to implement, and the operational readiness of the systems that they will be using in just 29 weeks’ time. It is far from reassuring that according to paragraph 28 of the UK Command Paper, the Government have so far committed to

    “produce full guidance to business…before the end of the transition period.”

    That could be December. That simply is not good enough for British businesses.

    Finally, on the same day that the Prime Minister claimed that the impasse can be resolved and a deal achieved in July, the Government signed up to two further negotiating rounds, concluding on 21 August. Is July a serious proposal, or is it one of those over-promises to which we have become accustomed from the Prime Minister, agreed in haste to win a headline only to fall by the wayside when reality bites?

    With that in mind, and thinking firmly about what is best for the United Kingdom, Labour wants the Government to succeed in achieving the deal that they promised and to avoid the perils of the alternative. The Government must fulfil their pledges to the British people in order to protect jobs, secure our food and medical supplies, and protect our citizens’ safety and security. We urge both sides to show the flexibility required to achieve a deal in our national interest.

  • Rachel Reeves – 2020 Speech on the Future Relationship with the EU

    Rachel Reeves – 2020 Speech on the Future Relationship with the EU

    Below is the text of the speech made by Rachel Reeves, the Labour MP for Leeds West, in the House of Commons on 9 June 2020.

    The UK left the European Union in January, and our task now is to build the best possible new relationship with our European neighbours. Our chief negotiator, David Frost, said last week:

    “We need to conclude this negotiation in good time to enable people and businesses to have certainty about the trading terms that will follow the end of the transition period at the end of this year”.

    We agree, but currently we are in the dark about what this new relationship looks like.

    Both the CBI and the TUC are warning about the impact of chaos and uncertainty on jobs and livelihoods. The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry warned this week that, as a consequence of covid-19, the stockpile of medicines has been run down and cannot be rebuilt, in terms of volume or range, by the end of this year. The Road Haulage Association says:​

    “We are still missing the essential practical information on all new processes and procedures”

    as the Government look to introduce millions of extra declarations at the border each year. Does the Minister believe that having 50,000 new customs officers to process those declarations will add to or reduce the red tape for UK businesses?

    From freight to farming, fisheries to pharmaceuticals, we need clarity. During the general election, the Prime Minister claimed time and again that the Government had an oven-ready deal. Its fundamental ingredients matter, so will the Minister confirm that the Government still, as they did in December, guarantee that there will be no tariffs, fees, charges or quantitative restrictions across all sectors? Leaving on WTO standards, or even a Canada-style deal, does not guarantee that. Will she also confirm that the Government will safeguard workers’ rights and consumer and environmental protections? There is much concern that that is no longer Government policy. Are the Government still committed to a broad, comprehensive and balanced security partnership, which is essential to bring criminals to justice? Will the Government respect the Good Friday agreement in its entirety?

    To conclude, this is not just a deal between the UK Government and the European Union. Through the course of the election, it was the basis of a deal with the British people. We urge both sides to redouble their efforts over the next few days and weeks to ensure that progress is made by the end of this month, so that the Government can honour their commitment to ensuring a good deal for Britain by the end of this year.

  • Rachel Reeves – 2020 Speech on the Northern Ireland Protocol

    Rachel Reeves – 2020 Speech on the Northern Ireland Protocol

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

    I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement and the Command Paper.

    During the election campaign, the Prime Minister told Northern Irish businesses that if they were asked to fill in any extra paperwork, they should call him personally and

    “I will direct them to throw that form in the bin”.

    On 22 January, when the Prime Minister was asked in this House whether that meant unfettered access between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Northern Ireland and Great Britain, he said: “Emphatically it does.” But today, for the first time, the Command Paper states that there will be “some new administrative requirements”.

    Checks on animals and agrifood will be a significant escalation of what currently takes place and will mean a border management system that is quite new in terms of its scope and scale. The document published today states that we will need to

    “expand some existing entry points…to provide for proportionate additional controls.”

    Will the Minister confirm what proportion of animal and agrifood products he expects will require additional physical checks? Will those checks take place at ports in Northern Ireland? Physical checks require a product to be taken off the lorry, opened, inspected, tested and quarantined until deemed legitimate. That is quite a burden. Can the Minister confirm that there will be physical checks, or, indeed, that there definitely will not be physical checks?

    The document published today states that

    “some new administrative process for traders,”

    including

    “electronic import declaration requirements, and safety and security information, for goods entering Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK”

    will apply.

    This is no small matter. Import declarations can require 40 separate data points, and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has estimated that each declaration for shipment will cost between £14 and £56. Can the Minister confirm the number of checks and the costs of those checks to businesses? For the 1.8 million goods vehicles that crossed from Great Britain into Northern Ireland last year, that certainly adds up.​

    On tariffs, the Government have previously promised that there would be no tariffs on goods traded either way between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Indeed, they have said that there will be no tariffs, fees or charges or quantitative restrictions. But today, for the first time, the Government have accepted that there will be tariffs on goods entering Northern Ireland. The Command Paper says that

    “goods ultimately entering Ireland…or at clear and substantial risk of doing so, will face tariffs.”

    So can the Minister say who will be levying or administering those tariffs, what “clear risk” means, and who will define it? Could tariffs be applied and later reimbursed, and if so, what would the timetable for that be? The Command Paper says:

    “We will produce full guidance to business and third parties before the end of the transition period.”

    That does not give much time for businesses to prepare for what could be quite profound changes.

    The Minister says that goods moving from Great Britain do not need to be checked because the majority will remain in the UK. This is a hugely important point. Indeed, 70% of goods that flow from Great Britain are destined for the high street. I hope that a way forward can be found so that those goods can move freely. However, the Command Paper accepts that

    “some new administrative process for traders, notably new electronic import declaration requirements, and safety and security information, for goods entering Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK”

    will apply. So can the Minister confirm that that will include rules of origin checks, safety and security checks and import declarations, and if so, where and how will those checks take place? There is no mention in the document published today of a trusted trader scheme, which is surely essential for ensuring the free flow of goods without tariffs from Great Britain into Northern Ireland that we all want to see.

    We welcome this statement, but it does expose the broken promises made by the Prime Minister. Today, for the first time, there has been an admission that there will be additional checks and that there will be tariffs on goods at risk of entering the single market. Even now, many fear that the Government are not willing to admit the full extent of those. We have seven months to get this right, and we must.

  • Rachel Reeves – 2020 Speech on Covid-19

    Rachel Reeves – 2020 Speech on Covid-19

    Below is the text of the speech made by Rachel Reeves, the Labour MP for Leeds West, in the House of Commons on 11 May 2020.

    I thank the Minister for that thoughtful opening speech. We all need the Government to get this right. Labour has been clear: we will always put the national interest first. We will support the Government when they get it right but challenge them to do more when that is needed.

    We all know how hard lockdown has been, especially for those who fear for their jobs and their businesses; the elderly; the lonely; and those living with an abusive partner or carer. At the moment, most grandparents want nothing more than to be able to hug their grandchildren. Thousands of people are missing out on the chance to say goodbye or even to hold the hand of the person they love in a care home. The same applies to the ambiguous situation relating to funerals and cremations, which is causing enormous pain and distress to so many families. It is in depriving us of these poignant moments—opportunities to hug, to hold and to say goodbye—that the impact of the virus causes the most distress.

    There are so many profound social costs, and it all has to be balanced with the huge challenges and risks faced by people working in health and social care. We all want the Government to get this right, but, frankly, the Government’s response in the past 24 hours has been a shambles.

    Last Thursday, the Government’s briefings to newspapers led to headlines proclaiming that we could look forward to “Happy Monday” and “Lockdown Freedom”, the day before a sunny bank holiday weekend. When I saw those headlines, I recalled the world war two poster in my history class at secondary school that said, “Careless talk costs lives”. I wonder sometimes whether the Government pause to contemplate the health impacts of some of their briefings and statements.

    Last night’s statement by the Prime Minister was a chance to provide some clarity about the situation, but it obscured as much as it revealed. This morning, the Foreign Secretary told “Today” programme listeners that they were free to see both their parents at the same time. Almost immediately afterwards, it was clarified that people may see only one parent at a time. The Foreign Secretary then told Sky News that people should return to work from Wednesday, but the press release issued by Downing Street alongside the Prime Minister’s statement clearly stated that people should be encouraged to return to work from Monday. If senior members of the Cabinet struggle to follow the advice, what are the rest of us meant to do?

    A four-nation strategy is essential to ensure a coherent and consistent message. It has served us well so far, so why is England now pursuing a different strategy from Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales? If someone lives in Bristol but works in Cardiff, should they be going to work? What about if someone lives in Berwick but works in Edinburgh?

    When it comes to Northern Ireland, the Government must also consider cross-border co-operation. Northern Ireland is unique in that it shares a land border with the Republic, so close co-operation with the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly is vital to ensure a joined-up approach to effectively combating the virus, particularly with regard to contact tracing. The UK has the highest death toll in Europe. That calls for greater care, not greater risks.

    The most substantive change in Government advice today is that workers who cannot work from home should return to work. We want workers to earn an income and businesses to thrive, but for that to happen, workers need to know that they and their families will be safe. Businesses want that knowledge and security as well.

    Let us be clear that the biggest risk to our economic security and recovery would be decisions that led to a second peak of the virus, so it is deeply worrying that workers were asked last night to return to work today with no guidelines published with regard to safety in the workplace. If someone has been told to return to work, but lives with a partner with a pre-existing condition or an elderly parent, what are they meant to do?

    What if someone has a school-age child but is now expected by the Government and their employer to return to work without the childcare to be able to do that? Can people still be furloughed? Is that at their employer’s discretion? If people cannot work through no fault of their own, will they be required to go on to statutory sick pay?

    Who will assess whether a workplace is sufficiently safe? Is it up to the individual employee? I refer the Minister to section 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which permits an individual employee not to return to work without risk of detriment if they reasonably believe that adequate safety measures are not in place. I hope that employers and Ministers will protect those rights.

    Meanwhile, workers are told to avoid public transport if possible, but for millions of people in the UK, it is not possible to get to work any other way but by public transport. We have already seen bus drivers in London lose their lives to covid-19. People need to know that they can go to work without endangering themselves, or indeed others. If we are to balance concern for the economy with concern for public health, the Government should bring unions, business leaders and scientists together to develop a national safety standard. The safety of workers and their families is not, and can never be, an optional extra.

    It is vital that the furlough scheme continues to support workers, including enabling people to work part time, particularly if businesses are unable to operate at full capacity. We need to hear more from Ministers about ongoing support until the time is right to operate at full capacity for some of the hardest-hit sectors, such as hospitality and travel. We need to support areas such as our coastal communities, which are so dependent on tourism.

    The impact of the virus exposes deep inequalities in our society. The poorest areas of the country have been hardest hit. Lower earners are most exposed while the better-off are insulated from the biggest threats. Of the bottom 50% of earners, just one in 10 can work from home. At the top, it is five times that.

    This crisis has shown who the real key workers are, from NHS staff to care workers, supermarket workers, cleaners, delivery drivers and bus drivers. They are often underpaid, under-appreciated and undervalued, and they have been asked to put their lives at risk while keeping others safe. Now, more working people who do manual jobs in manufacturing, food processing and construction are being asked to risk their health, and that of their family, while those doing office jobs, which are often better paid, can work from home and face fewer risks.

    Black and minority ethnic Britons are disproportionately at risk. We know that black Britons are four times more likely to die from this virus compared with white people. We need a public inquiry into that, which Baroness Lawrence called for today, and we need urgent action to protect the most vulnerable from this virus. Coronavirus did not cause those inequalities, but it has thrown a sharp light on them. We must not let them deepen even further.

    In our care homes the spread of the virus continues and the death toll is still too high. Half of workers in care homes earn less than a real living wage, and a quarter are on zero-hours contracts. Many have died. Last Wednesday, the Prime Minister reported that 29 care workers have died since the start of this crisis, but data from the Office for National Statistics show that there were 131 coronavirus-related deaths among social care workers up to 20 April. According to the National Care Forum, just one in five care workers with symptoms have been tested, and they still lack priority testing for coronavirus. Those who dedicate their lives to caring for others, and who care for the sick and the dying whose relatives cannot be with them, are being left without adequate protection, and we are only beginning to know the real cost.

    One reason why the lockdown rules are causing so much worry is that new infections and deaths are still at higher levels than when we went into lockdown. The test and trace strategy is still a mess. MPs from across the House will have constituents who have been waiting for well over 48 hours to get their results, and some who have been waiting for more than a week. We see reports of tests having to be flown to the United States because we lack the capacity here. How did we get into that position? Without a test, trace, and isolate strategy it is almost impossible to identify a new spike in infections, or to do anything about it. The Government need to sort that out. Relaxing lockdown will work only if it is sorted out.

    At some point we will come through to the other side of this virus, and we will go about rebuilding our lives, our communities, and our economy. The recovery will not be easy, and it will require boldness and imagination to build something better. The contribution of the British public and all our key workers has been immense, but the crisis has revealed huge injustices and inequalities. We deserve a fairer country—that will be Labour’s mission, and I hope it will be the Government’s mission too.

  • Rachel Reeves – 2020 Speech on the Economy and Jobs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Rachel Reeves – 2016 Speech in Tribute to Jo Cox

    Below is the text of the speech made by Rachel Reeves, the Labour MP for Leeds West, in the House of Commons on 20 June 2016.

    I stand here today to honour a friend and a colleague. Along with shock, anger and grief, I have very many fond memories of Jo. Jo and I knew each other for around 10 years. I have known her husband Brendan for longer than that: we first met at a Labour student conference about 18 years ago, and it was through Brendan that I first met Jo.

    I remember Jo and Brendan coming round for dinner at my and my husband’s house in London and our visiting them on their boat—first in Ladbroke Grove and later in Wapping. I remember worrying that I had drunk too much wine early in the evening, until I realised that it was the boat that was swaying and not me.

    I remember talking with Jo about her future shortly after I became an MP. She was thinking about standing for Parliament and spent a day shadowing me in my constituency of Leeds West, talking to constituents about their problems, campaigning with local party members and attending meetings. By the end of the day, a lot of people were not sure who was the MP and who was doing the shadowing. Jo had a way with people—a way of relating to people from all walks of life. She had a real way of doing that.

    Jo’s main hesitation about a parliamentary career was her young family. She worried, as many of us do, about whether she could be a great MP and a great mum at the same time. But when the opportunity came up to represent her home seat of Batley and Spen, Jo felt a special responsibility to step up and do what she could for the place where she was born, grew up and went to school—the place that Jo called home.

    Jo wanted to make the world fairer, more equal, more tolerant and more generous. We all have better instincts and deepest fears. Jo appealed to our better instincts—our sense that, as she said in her maiden speech, what we have in common is greater than what divides us.

    On Friday morning, less than 24 hours after Jo was killed, I sat in a coffee shop in Batley just a few minutes away from where Jo had been murdered. A woman came over to me and said that she had not known Jo, but that Jo’s death had made her want to be a bit more like her—a better person, a better mother, a better daughter, a better wife. It is ironic that, having travelled to some of the most damaged, war-ravaged places in the world, Jo died so near to her home. But she died doing the job she loved, in the place she loved, representing the people she loved. Her mum and Dad said to me that Jo would not have changed a thing. She lived the life she wanted to live. And yet, in her Mum’s words:

    “She had so much more that she could have done”.

    Jo was struck down much too soon. So it now falls on all our shoulders—the woman I met in a Batley coffee shop, Jo’s friends, MPs, all of us—to carry on Jo’s work: to combat and guard against hatred, intolerance and injustice and to serve others with dignity and love. That is the best way we can remember Jo and all she stood for.

    But lastly, let me say this. Batley and Spen will go on to elect a new MP. But no one can replace a mother.