UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Edward Leigh – 2020 Speech on the Economy and Jobs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Wera Hobhouse rose—

    Sir Edward Leigh

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

    Wera Hobhouse

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

    Sir Edward Leigh

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

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

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

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

  • Rachel Reeves – 2020 Speech on the Economy and Jobs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Alison Thewliss – 2020 Speech on the Economy and Jobs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Drew Hendry

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

    Alison Thewliss

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

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

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

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

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

  • John McDonnell – 2020 Speech on the Economy and Jobs

    John McDonnell – 2020 Speech on the Economy and Jobs

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)

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

    John McDonnell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)

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

    John McDonnell

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

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

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

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

    Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)

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

    John McDonnell

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

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

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

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

    Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)

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

    John McDonnell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)

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

    ​John McDonnell

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

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

    Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)

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

    John McDonnell

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

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

  • John Healey – 2020 Speech on Building Safety

    John Healey – 2020 Speech on Building Safety

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Robert Jenrick – 2020 Statement on Building Safety

    Robert Jenrick – 2020 Statement on Building Safety

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Alex Davies-Jones – 2020 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Alex Davies-Jones, the Labour MP for Pontypridd, in the House of Commons on 15 January 2020.

    Diolch yn fawr, Madam Deputy Speaker.​

    Rising to give my maiden speech, I am reminded of the quip that there is never a more dangerous moment to speak than before the audience has had their dinner; but whoever first wrote that line clearly never had my teenage experience—of singing in a local workman’s club for an audience who were waiting for the bingo to start. I thank my nan for giving me that particular opportunity, again and again, but at least it means I have absolutely nothing to fear from those on the Benches opposite. They may deplore and decry my socialism, but they are armed with neither heavy-duty black marker pens nor the impatience of a valleys grandmother.

    There can be no greater honour in life than to represent the place closest to your heart. I am Ponty born and bred. I went to my local comprehensive school in Tonyrefail. My dad and both granddads were miners. Pontypridd runs through my veins as strongly and truly as the Rivers Taff and Rhondda run through our valley.

    Pontypridd, my home, is also the home of local legends—not just my mam, but the legends of Tom Jones and Wales’s most feared and capped prop-forward, Gethin Jenkins. Whilst I was tempted to construct this speech around the lyrics of Sir Tom, I did not have the same temptation when it came to Geth’s on-field banter. That would generally consist of a look so menacing that it could make the very scoreboard twitch.

    To add to that list of local legends is my predecessor, Owen Smith. Owen is a tough act to follow in every sense. I know that his wit and wisdom, his rhetoric and his radicalism will be missed in this place, just as they will be welcomed back at home. His work here, particularly campaigning on surgical mesh implants, will change the lives of women not just in this country, but around the world, as the full scale of that scandal is still being uncovered. That tenacious, groundbreaking campaign work gave a glimpse of what Owen could and should have achieved in government. Owen blazed a trail—as he always does. In his nine years in Parliament he lived a political life worthy of three decades. No wonder his first career ambition was to be zipping around the green pitch at Ponty’s Sardis Road, not warming these green Benches. I know that colleagues here will wish him luck with his return to the green, green grass of home.

    As with Owen and his predecessor, Kim Howells, music, rugby and politics represented the fundamentals of life growing up in Pontypridd. It is difficult to imagine it any other way in a constituency that gave the world the Welsh national anthem and “Cwm Rhondda”. The Pontypridd front row were not just three rugby players; they were, for us, the eighth wonder of the world.

    With iron and coal and industry comes the politics—politics rooted in people, fairness and radicalism. And whilst the iron and the coal may have gone, the people have not, and nor have the radicalism and the ambition for fairness and equality. I have no doubts whatsoever that it is my duty to hold the red banner high in this place, on behalf of my constituents; to tell their stories, and to tell the difficult truths to those on my own Front Bench as well as the one opposite. A town built on iron and steel does not elect shrinking violets, and I will use my voice to elevate the lived experiences of my constituents so that they can never, ever be ignored.

    I also have no doubt that my task, and that of all my Labour colleagues, has become more difficult following the election result in December. One of the jewels in the Ponty crown is the Royal Mint in Llantrisant, which is a ​fantastic employer of nearly 1,000 people. But it is an irony not lost on me, or my constituents, that despite the fact that we physically make all the country’s money, we see precious little of it in return in the shape of Government investment. The High Speed 2 maps proudly produced by this Government show billions of pounds worth of red and blue streaks across the map of England, but not so much as a slither in Wales. There is no investment in rail electrification, or in the transformational tidal lagoon technology being developed in south Wales. Wales can, and will, lead the way on ingenuity, the economy and the environment, but the Government must stop holding us back.

    One very small word has a huge world of meaning in south Wales, and that is the sort of economy and environment we want and deserve: tidy—a tidy economy, and a tidy environment. To achieve means a commitment to the kind of green industrial revolution being promoted by the Labour party, not the wishy-washy promises of the UK Government. It means investment in future technologies, and it means working with the Welsh Labour Government on their groundbreaking environmental legislation, and the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. From Pontypridd to Perth the climate crisis that we are facing impacts on us all, and I will use my voice in this place to keep the climate emergency at the forefront. I come from a seat that helped power the last industrial revolution, and for the sake of my generation, and the one to follow, I want Pontypridd to be at the forefront of the next one.

    I will close by saying that the bridge that symbolises the town of Pontypridd will be my inspiration for my work in Parliament. It was the longest single span bridge in Britain when it was opened in 1756, and it is not just the architectural ingenuity that inspires me, but the fact that it represented William Edwards’s fourth attempt at a bridge to cross the Taff. He did not let the floods, collapses and miscalculations deter him; he kept thinking, he kept on trying, and he kept building. That is how I intend to carry forward this job of representing the people of Pontypridd, which is the greatest honour of my life. I will make mistakes, I will learn from them, and I will keep going. With the support of my family and my constituents, I will be the bridge from Pontypridd to Westminster.

  • Kenny MacAskill – 2020 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Kenny MacAskill, the SNP MP for East Lothian, in the House of Commons on 15 January 2020.

    As is customary—and, I believe, correct—I will start with a tribute to my predecessor. Martin Whitfield and I disagreed fundamentally on Scotland’s constitutional situation, but in many other aspects we were at one. I am conscious of the fact that he was tenacious in opposing Brexit, and equally assiduous in representing his constituency, so I know the standards that he has set. He will continue to reside in the constituency, where I will no doubt bump into him.​
    It was the same for those who went before him. My own colleague George Kerevan was equally assiduous. Prior to that, the constituency was represented by Fiona O’Donnell, who continues to serve the county as a Labour councillor in East Lothian. It goes all the way back to the late, great John P. Mackintosh, who set the standards and template that everybody who has represented East Lothian since has sought to aspire to.

    As my colleague George Kerevan pointed out, I have a link to John P. Mackintosh because an assiduous campaigner for him—indeed, someone who has sought to keep his memory alive—is Arthur Greenan, who was also a tenacious campaigner for George Kerevan and an equally vibrant one for me, despite his age. Arthur is one of those to have made the political journey from being a Labour activist and voter to becoming an SNP activist and supporter. It is a journey made by many, and one that I tracked myself when I was privileged to write a biography of arguably Scotland’s greatest ever MP who never was, the late, great Jimmy Reid.

    My constituency has endured changes, but it has stayed the same in many ways. It continues to roll from the Lammermuir hills to the banks of the Forth. It contains fertile land, bonny beaches and, indeed, fine folk. Some industries, such as mining, have gone. Other industries, such as renewables, have come—which is why it is important and appropriate that I am making this speech at this juncture in the debate on the Queen’s Speech. We build around those new industries, but they are still based around the vibrant towns and villages of both the historic county and the wider modern constituency. East Lothian’s people remain undiminished in their grit, determination and decency, and indeed—as a new arrival, I know this—in their warm and welcoming nature, as thousands seek to move to the expanding county of East Lothian.

    There are historic links to my constituency in this institution, and not just through those who have been elected Members. When I first arrived here last month, I came across a statue of Oliver Cromwell, who is well known in my constituency, in the town of Dunbar. He is not viewed as the Lord Protector; far from it. He may not have been as brutal there as he was at Drogheda, but people still suffered at the Battle of Dunbar in 1650, when his English army killed thousands of Scottish soldiers and captured thousands more. Those who were captured were marched south, with many dying en route. They were taken to Durham cathedral, where thankfully a memorial now recognises what they suffered. Many died in incarceration there. Of those who were released thereafter, some were given by the Lord Protector to the army of France. Others were sent to do drainage work in the area of the Wash in southern England. Others still were transported to Barbados and to the Americas.

    But some good did come from this, because in 1657, seven years after serving their penal servitude, some of those Scottish soldiers banded together to form the Scots Charitable Society of what is now Boston, which is argued to be the one of the oldest such charitable organisations not just in the United States but in the western hemisphere. They keep contacts with the community in Dunbar, as indeed did the Scottish Prisoners of War Society—because such an organisation does exist, with many American members, and they had a re-enactment of the battle last year.​
    You can move along the A1 as well as you can move along the corridors here. Moving along the A1, after some 50 miles I come to the small town of Tranent, and equally moving along the corridors here, I came upon a recognition of the Earl of Liverpool—there is, I think, both a bust and a painting of him. The Earl of Liverpool is the third-longest-serving Prime Minister, but in the town of Tranent he is better recalled because he was a British military commander when the massacre of Tranent took place in 1797. Twelve men, women and children were slain because they opposed the imposition of conscription. He was then the military commander for east central Scotland. He was not responsible for the order to fire, but he was culpable, and indeed took the blame, according to the Lord Advocate—but he obviously went on to greater things and became Prime Minister in 1820.

    The Earl of Liverpool’s links with Scotland do not end there, because this year is not just the 700th anniversary of the Declaration of Arbroath, when my country’s nationhood was enshrined by those who cherish it and have it at its heart, but the year in which we will be celebrating the bicentenary—the 200th anniversary—of the 1820 uprising, or insurrection, when working people in Scotland campaigned for and demanded the universal franchise. Indeed, having seen what had happened just the year before at Peterloo, they pledged that they would not just take it lying down. We will remember them.

    The Earl of Liverpool is remembered because he signed the death warrant for John Baird, Andrew Hardie and James Wilson. He had them hanged and then beheaded—the last time such punishment was used in the United Kingdom. We will remember them in April because they fought for the universal franchise—for the right of working people, as hon. Members mentioned earlier, to have that vote. Nineteen others, including a child, were transported to Botany Bay, and only two made it home to their native land.

    Centuries on, of course, we have the universal franchise: not just working men but working women have the right to vote. It is for that reason that I and my colleagues are in this Chamber today. I have no doubt that if the situation was the same as it had been in 1820, it would have been a representative of the rich landlords because they were an oligarchy back then.

    But we do face challenges, because we have a Tory Government who are no more reflective of the people of Scotland now than, arguably, under Henry Dundas. That is why I will continue to emulate the good constituency work of those of my own party and, indeed, of others to represent the fine people of East Lothian. Equally, I will remember the memories of those who went before who struggled for our native land to retain its identity and to advance the interests of working people. Indeed, as I come to the conclusion of my speech, I remember that one of the banners under which those who went to their doom in 1820 marched was “Scotland Free or a Desert”.

    As we sit in a debate on a Queen’s Speech that talks about a transformative agenda, many in my constituency, especially the most vulnerable, fear what will happen to the welfare state and the NHS, and the gains made by our parents and our grandparents. We will, as with our forebears, defend the rights of working people and the gains that we are entitled to expect, and we will defend our nationhood. Thank you for your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker.

  • Tim Farron – 2020 Speech on a Green Industrial Revolution

    Tim Farron – 2020 Speech on a Green Industrial Revolution

    Below is the text of the speech made by Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrat MP for Westmorland and Lonsdale, in the House of Commons on 15 January 2020.

    It is always a massive joy to follow the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). It is also great to see you back in your place, Mr Deputy Speaker; congratulations on your re-elevation.

    It has been a genuine privilege to sit through the maiden speeches by the hon. Members for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana), for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Gary Sambrook), to whom I pay tribute. I wish to single out my new neighbour, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell), who made an excellent maiden speech and referred in particular to the need—I say this in hearing range of the Secretary of State for Transport—to strip Arriva Northern of its franchise, to make sure that we have a local train service that actually runs some trains.

    I remember giving my maiden speech; the terrifying fact is that I have a copy of it on a VCR tape in the garage. That is a reminder that I am indeed an old git, Mr Deputy Speaker.

    The green industrial revolution is nothing if not an ambitious title, and so it needs to be if we are to head off the existential threat of catastrophic climate change. Ambition is indeed what we need, but although we can give something an impressive and ambitious title, it is unlikely to earn a lasting legacy unless it actually delivers. Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s new deal is not still invoked today because of its catchy title, but because of the good it achieved. We marvel at the Victorian expansion of the railways not because the Victorians did good spin, but because the network was actually built. Nations are never built on public relations stunts.

    Members can call me a glass-half-empty person if they like, but my fear for the Government is that they will make two significant mistakes as they decide how they are going to use their new majority. First, in order to mask the damage that the UK’s leaving the world’s biggest market will inevitably do to our economy and public sector, it is likely that the Government will max-out the credit card on revenue spending in a way that makes the recent Labour manifesto look fiscally conservative by comparison. Secondly, they will talk about big infrastructure investment, both the green and the not-so-green varieties, but in reality their fear of big government means they will not deliver anything that will make a true difference. In other words, the Government will show largesse when they should observe restraint, and restraint when they need to be ambitious. I hope I am wrong, because what we need is to be wise on revenue spending and ambitious on capital, particularly when it comes to green infrastructure. We must make the big strategic decisions needed to fight climate change.​

    In South Lakeland, we see nature changing before our very eyes, as climate change takes place with horrific consequences. Our communities are still reeling, four years on, from the devastating floods of Storm Desmond. Indeed, in the past decade or so we have been hit by three floods, each one of them classified as a one-in-200-year event. Storm Desmond flooded 7,500 homes and more than 1,000 businesses. We have to mitigate the impact of climate change on families and businesses while building the infrastructure to prevent a climate catastrophe. That is why Kendal’s flood prevention scheme must be delivered. All three phases of the flood scheme are now fully funded and I am glad that, after much pressure, the biggest concerns about the scheme have now been answered. In the place of every tree that must be removed as part of the scheme, six new ones will be planted in the town, and many of them will be semi-mature at the point of planting.

    I was there the morning after Storm Desmond, and in the weeks after. I saw people’s lives ruined; families left destitute; and businesses wiped out. Even today, there are children who still unable to sleep any time it begins to rain. I could not look people in the eye on Appleby Road, Shap Road, Sandylands, Ann Street or Mintsfeet Road if I did not do everything in my power to deliver them some kind of protection and some kind of peace of mind. After four years of promises—four years of fear whenever it pours; four years of incalculable strain on mental health for the old and young alike—how dare I claim to represent them if I do not see the flood defences delivered? The reality is that we are too late to prevent climate change, but we have perhaps a dozen years to avoid a major climate catastrophe with even more appalling human consequences.

    The main issue that I wish to focus on in the next few moments is the revolution that we need in public transport. Over the past 30 years, Governments of all colours have allowed funding for bus provision to evaporate. Our communities in South Lakeland have done a spectacular job in putting together community bus services to plug some of the gaps caused by this attrition of Government funding, most notably the Dales bus service in Sedbergh and Dent, which does a wonderful job connecting those Dales communities with Kendal and the surrounding communities. We have fought recently to keep the 552 and the 530 bus services. These are great victories. I am immensely proud of them, but they are short-term solutions at best. They are sticking plasters, when what is needed is ambitious change.

    It is utterly ludicrous that bus services in London receive a £722 million annual subsidy, when in Cumbria we receive nothing at all—not a single penny. The lack of subsidy has a catastrophic impact on fares, and the extortionate prices make commuting by bus a massive challenge, especially for lower-paid workers. How is it right, Mr Speaker, that the 5 mile journey from Ambleside to the neighbouring community of Grasmere costs £4.90, while a journey of equivalent length in London costs £1.50? If we are to entertain any hope of revolutionising public transport, the Government need to look beyond the M25—well beyond the M25. Indeed, it may come as a surprise to some in Government that the north does not stop at junction 32 of the M6.

    There is much to recommend the northern powerhouse, with two slight caveats: first, it is not much of a powerhouse; and secondly, it is not very northern. The transport ​spend in the north-west per head of population is still barely half that in London, despite the promises that were made when the northern powerhouse was first established. I will continue—I will have to continue—to fight the cuts to individual bus services. I will continue to stand with, and work with, the community to find alternative solutions, just as we are currently doing for Arnside, Levens, Cartmel, Hincaster and Kendal where we have replaced the 552 and the 530 services, but let us be honest, all that will do is lessen the decline.

    Bus services are essential to life for rural communities such as ours. They are also key to Cumbria’s vibrant tourism industry. No one could or would deny that the Lake District and the surrounding communities are utterly awesome. It is a national treasure and a source of joy to many more than just those of us who are privileged enough to live among those lakes, mountains and dales.

    Cumbria’s Lake District is Britain’s biggest visitor destination outside London. Some 16 million people visited us last year alone, but 83% of tourists travel to us by car. However, we know that, with the right interventions and conditions, our visitors will travel sustainably. Public bus transport is a key component of that, alongside rail, boats, bikes and, of course, walking in the hills. Improved bus services could alleviate pressure on the roads that become clogged with the cars of those visiting.

    The Government keep ignoring the plight of rural communities. A so-called green industrial revolution in London or Manchester simply will not do. We would love it if they stopped ignoring us, and instead commission a truly ambitious and comprehensive rural bus service to exceed anything that we have seen before, even 35 years ago before the deregulation which started to decline. It will be an investment not only that revives rural communities and sees a huge reduction in the use of cars locally, but that boosts our economy and increases access to jobs.

    My proposal today is that the Minister should ensure the direct commissioning through Transport for the North of a comprehensive, affordable, reliable rural bus network in Cumbria—a network that will be a substantial step towards ensuring that the northern powerhouse actually serves the rural north.

    Finally, if our efforts to tackle climate change are going to come anywhere near something that could be classified as a revolution, we need to transform public transport interconnection and that connection between buses and trains. The main public transport route to the Lake District is the Lakes line. Back in 2017, the Government cancelled the planned electrification of the Lakes line on the basis of a massive and flawed overestimation of the project costs. This was and remains a huge let-down for communities around the lakes, and yet electrification of the Lakes line is the easiest electrification project in the country. The 12-mile route carries hundreds of thousands of passengers each year, but it could carry four times as many if we introduced a passing loop at Burneside so that we could run a half-hourly service, and if it were electrified, it would significantly reduce its carbon emissions.

    If the Government are serious about tackling climate change, they need to undo their foolish cuts to the electrification project, and the Lakes line is the perfect place for the Government to begin a green U-turn to reverse their mistakes of recent years. The Lakes line is short, but it is iconic. It carries significant numbers and could carry so many more. I plead with the Government ​to make their actions match their words. They should not just plug the gaps in public transport, but instead revolutionise the system. They should speak not of subsidies, but of investment that multiplies its value in the economy of the rural north. Targets are dangerous if they are simply a fig leaf to cover up a failure to act in the present. The Government must act now, and we will wait to see whether they do.

  • Claire Coutinho – 2020 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the speech made by Claire Coutinho, the Conservative MP for East Surrey, in the House of Commons on 15 January 2020.

    I commend my hon. Friends the Members for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Gary Sambrook) and the hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) for their maiden speeches today.

    I am proud to be here representing the beautiful constituency of East Surrey. I begin by paying tribute to my predecessor, Sam Gyimah. We have more in common than representing East Surrey: we are both the children of immigrant doctors, and I, too, am 5 feet 4½ inches. Although we may have slightly different views on Brexit, I know he is passionate about the prosperity of this country, which both our families now call home. I am sure the House will agree that he made many important contributions in this place as Childcare Minister, as Prisons Minister and as Universities Minister.

    Sam was right when he said, “In East Surrey we stand on the shoulders of giants.” From Geoffrey Howe to Lord Melbourne and Lord Palmerston, the list is long and distinguished. I would like, however, to make special mention of Peter Ainsworth. From his work as shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to his expert chairmanship of the Environmental Audit Committee and his work on the board of the Environment Agency, I can safely say that I stand on the shoulders of a very green giant indeed.

    East Surrey is known for its local beauty. There are four local nature reserves, eight sites of special scientific interest and over a third of the constituency is in an area of outstanding natural beauty or of great landscape value. Those who walk through the North Downs or the High Weald are met with chalk downs, rolling hillsides, lowland meadows and woodlands.

    Our vibrant village spirit is evident in the communities of Tatsfield, Warlingham, Woldingham, Lingfield, Felbridge and many more besides. I hope to be a champion in this House for preserving and protecting this treasured way of life.​
    In Outwood, near Godstone, work began in 1665 on one of the oldest working British windmills. The owner is said to have watched the great fire of London rage 25 miles away from its roof, and I am proud that what East Surrey helped to pioneer in the renewable energy sector in the 17th century has now become one of the most remarkable success stories in the UK today. Not only are we the world’s leader in offshore wind, but seven of the 10 biggest wind farms in Europe are right here in the UK. I commend the ambitious environment Bill proposed in Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech to forward this work, and I look forward to seeing the green measures in the upcoming Budget that will undoubtedly build on it.

    For East Surrey to continue fulfilling its role as the lungs of London, I hope to secure much-needed investment in local infrastructure for vital improvements to roads—tackling potholes is crucial to local productivity—and to public transport, particularly rail. More than half of the area’s working population commutes to places like London, Crawley and Gatwick, yet we have some of the most congested rail lines and roads in the UK. Making sure that people can successfully get to work and to public services is not only good for the environment and the wellbeing of residents but ensures that our local towns—Horley, Caterham and Oxted—can continue to thrive.

    I had the considerable pleasure of working with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), on the 2019 spending review, which saw record investment in schools, in the police and in the NHS. Now I am on the other side of the table, I wholeheartedly and unreservedly welcome the increased funding, particularly where those funds might land in East Surrey. I will be working hard to make sure that the initial groundwork of that national announcement makes a meaningful difference to classrooms, GP surgeries and police officers on the ground.

    I would like to mention my grandmother, who may be the single greatest emblem of Conservative values I know. She was a teacher in India who, in my memory, took her fashion lead firmly from the Queen. She raised seven children with little in terms of resources, but with a strong sense that you can achieve the impossible with hard work and determination. Her children were doctors, teachers and grade 8 musicians who are now scattered all across the globe. If she could see me here today, in “the noblest government in the world,” I am sure she would tell me to work hard, to be determined and to achieve the impossible.

    Politicians today have a near impossible task. We live in a world of changing technology, behaviour, demographics and, as has been the subject of many excellent speeches today, environment. In this place I hope to contribute in a small way to preparing this great country for the future to come.