Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Edward Miliband Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

May I return the compliment to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and say what a pleasure it is to face him? That was a typically eloquent and entertaining speech, and he has a very happy future in opposition on the Tory rubber chicken fundraising circuit.

The defining questions at the heart of the Budget are these. Does it show a proper understanding of what is really going on in the country? Does it have the right priorities in facing that reality? Does it have a long-term plan that can tackle the deep-seated challenges the country faces?

I want to start with the alternate reality that the Chancellor described six days ago. He told us that “the plan is working.” Many will have heard that and thought to themselves, as they struggle to pay their bills and as their wages stagnate, “What planet are these people living on?” They are right to think that. The Office for Budget Responsibility says that we are in the midst of the biggest fall in living standards on record. Not a mention of that in the Chancellor’s pantomime speech. That record goes back 70 years. How can that be a plan that is working?

The Budget came a week after Which? said that one in seven people in our country are skipping meals because they cannot afford to eat, and six in 10 are cutting back on essentials, selling items or dipping into savings. How can that be a plan that is working? The OBR says that even by 2028 we will not get back to the living standards we had before the pandemic. How can that be a plan that is working?

Finally, and most damningly, the Resolution Foundation shows that even by 2024 wages will still be lower than they were in 2010. Let us just take in the scale of that failure. For all the boasts, all the promises and all the hype we have heard from the Government Benches at multiple Budgets over the last decade or more, people will be worse off at the next election than they were when the Tories came to power 13 long years ago. Because I am a bit of a nerd—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Only a bit, thank you very much. I asked the Library when it last happened that a party in power had wages lower at the end of its time in office—

[Tim Farron]

Under Labour!

[Edward Miliband]

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. If he can be patient, I will give him the answer. First, the Library staff told me, “Well, certainly not under any Government since the second world war.” I asked them to go back further, and they went back to the first world war, but they said, “No, not since the first world war.” They had to go all the way back to 1855 to find that happening—before the foundation of the Labour party, I say to the hon. Gentleman. For all the enormous challenges that Governments have faced over 168 years, this Government stand out for their failure to deliver what I think all sides can agree the British people have the right to expect—rising standards of living. Throw in the highest tax burden since the 1950s, public services that are crumbling in so many areas and debt that is up, and it is no wonder that the British people are asking what they have to show for 13 years of this lot. They are being paid less and taxed more for worse quality services. Conservative Members may not like it, but it is the truth—it is their record, it is their legacy.

That takes me to the second part of my speech. Why has this happened? It is because the Government have had the wrong priorities and they have failed on growth. Let us talk about the priorities in this Budget. I welcome the fact that the Government followed our plan to stop energy bills rising even further. But let us be clear—I think this feeling is shared on both sides of the House—that £2,500 energy bills are not a cause for celebration. They are double what they were 18 months ago. The energy bills crisis is absolutely not over for families and businesses up and down this country.

Of course, when we proposed the windfall tax the Government resisted it tooth and nail. Then they were dragged kicking and screaming to do it. But here’s the thing: as they did so, they introduced a massive tax break for the very fossil fuel companies whose windfalls of war they were supposed to be taxing. It was not mentioned in the Budget, it was not even in the published OBR documents—it was in an annex—that the total cost of that loophole is £11.4 billion over the coming years. That is a tax break for companies making record profits and paying out record amounts in dividends and share buy-backs—a tax break not available to any other sector of the economy, including renewables. Think how those billions of pounds could have helped to tackle the cost of living crisis. By the Government’s choices we know their priorities, and it is not the British people.

Let us take the issue of the abolition of the pension tax relief lifetime allowance, on which we will force a vote this evening. It may interest the House to hear what a former Chancellor said about why we have a lifetime allowance. He said that

“we must demonstrate that we are all in this together. When looking for savings, I think that it is fair to look at the tax relief that we give to the top 1%.”—[Official Report, 5 December 2012; Vol. 554, c. 878.]

Who was that? Not Gordon Brown. Not Alistair Darling. It was George Osborne, in the autumn statement of 2012. Remember him? But we do not need to go back that far. I have been doing my research. What about the Budget of March 2021? I wonder who was Chancellor then—he might have gone on to higher things. The then Chancellor froze the lifetime pensions allowance for five years and said:

“It is a tax policy that is progressive and fair”.—[Official Report, 3 March 2021; Vol. 690, c. 256.]

That was the current Prime Minister. Let me explain why he said that. The reason we have a lifetime limit on tax-free pension saving is to provide some cap on the amount of pensions tax relief for the most wealthy in our society. The average pension pot in this country is £60,000. The change the Chancellor is making to abolish the lifetime limit of over £1 million is therefore about people with a pension pot 17 times the average. The Minister nods from a sedentary position—[Interruption.] He says it is all surgeons: I will come to that in a moment.

According to the Resolution Foundation, this change will give a benefit of almost £250,000 to someone with a £2 million pension. If Members vote for this Budget measure tonight, they will be voting for a tax cut of almost £250,000 for people with a £2 million pension pot. That might be the right priority for the Government: it is not the right priority for us.

The Minister for Health and Secondary Care claims, and the Chancellor says, that they are doing this for the doctors. But according to the Resolution Foundation, five in six people with the largest pension pots, who will benefit from this change, are not doctors. They are not in medicine at all. In fact—get this—one in five of the people who will benefit are in banking and finance and nothing to do with the medical profession. There could have been a bespoke scheme at a fraction of the cost, just like there is for the judges.

We have been told by Treasury Ministers that this is the “politics of envy”. No, it is not, it is about fairness. Even George Osborne agrees with that, and when you are beaten by George Osborne on fairness, you know you are losing the argument. The other argument that Government Members have been making is that Labour is somehow creating problems by opposing this measure. Let us get this straight: the Government come along with a £1 billion tax cut for the very richest in our society when everyone is struggling and they blame us! The truth is that it says so much about them, because here’s the thing: they did not even get that it would be controversial. That is how out of touch they are.

There should have been different tax choices in the Budget to fund our schools, cut NHS waiting lists and level up our country. The Government could have ended non-dom status, but they will not do that. They could have ended the tax breaks for private schools to help fund our state schools, but they will not do that either. In preparing for this debate, Mr Deputy Speaker, I came across a brilliant article for that proposal set out in 2017 in The Times, entitled “Put VAT on school fees”. It was written by a participant in today’s debate and I think it is worth quoting. The author said this:

“to my continuing surprise, we still consider the education of the children of plutocrats and oligarchs to be a charitable activity.”

I am not sure that we on the Opposition Front Bench would go that far, but there you go. [Laughter.] He went on to say:

“The prime minister, quite rightly, wants to end burning injustice...We could scarcely find a better way of doing that than ending tax advantages for the global super-rich and instead extending them to the vulnerable and voiceless. What better way to make next month’s budget a budget for social justice?”

Now, the House may be wondering who wrote that article. It was none other than the Levelling Up Secretary! I am a generous person, so I will give way to him and he can tell us whether he still believes what he wrote six years ago. Does he agree with himself? Why so uncharacteristically bashful? Why this sudden bout of monastic silence? It is so uncharacteristic. I would love for him to tell us: did he make the argument in Government in the run-up to the Budget, or did he just not bother to make the argument because he did not think he had a hope of persuading the people in charge? I think it is probably the latter, because, let us be honest, there is zero evidence that this Government will make the necessary choices. He knows it and the country knows it. The Government have the wrong priorities, which is why people are sick and tired of them.

Let us talk about the third part of the Budget, because it does not just have the wrong priorities for now, but for the future too. I want to come on to the energy transformation that the country needs. If we want to get energy bills down, there is a simple answer: going all in on a green energy sprint. We know that wind and solar are many times cheaper than fossil fuels, but the problem is that we have a Government who do not get it. The Levelling Up Secretary is a case in point. When he should be blocking coalmines he waves them through, as he has done in Cumbria. By the way, it will interest the House to know that he said it is carbon neutral, good for the climate and good for the environment. People may wonder. We have been going around the world lecturing people about getting off coal, so how have we suddenly got a coalmine that is good for the environment? Well, the answer is that in the calculations he made, he does not count the burning of the coal, just the mining of it. That is like saying tobacco does not damage your health if you do not take into account the smoking of it. He can correct me if I am wrong, but that is correct, isn’t it? Yes, it is correct.

The Levelling Up Secretary should support onshore wind, but he blocks it. The onshore wind ban is very important. It is symbolic. The Government have their fifth energy re-set coming next week, I believe, so I look forward to that. It is the fifth one in two and a half years—a sure sign that the policy is not going well. The onshore wind ban brought in by David Cameron raised bills—this is really important—by £160 for every family in the country. It did seem like good news, because the Levelling Up Secretary made some positive noises and promised things would change in December, but all the evidence is that yet again the Government will resile from taking the right position. This month, RenewableUK expressed its bitter disappointment, saying that

“Ministers are doing almost nothing to lift the draconian ban”.

The Energy Secretary, who is not here, calls onshore wind an “eyesore”. It makes me nostalgic, believe it or not, for the brief period when the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) was Business Secretary. He was an unlikely climate warrior but his proposal to bring onshore wind rules in line with other infrastructure was better than the position under the current Government. It is harder today to build an onshore wind farm—a unique category in the planning system in England, whereby, basically, if one person objects, it cannot be built—than it is to build an incinerator. That does not make any sense. Why not go for the proposal from the right hon. Member for North East Somerset? That is my injunction to the Secretary of State.

The Government have failed not just on onshore wind, but on energy efficiency. In 2010 there were 1.7 million home upgrades. Last year there were 128,000, and there was no new money in the Budget. At that rate, it will take a century to bring all homes up to an energy performance certificate C rating.

But the biggest long-term failure of the Budget is the lack of a coherent plan to compete with President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act. This is really serious. Talk to any business today and they will say that this is a massive competitive challenge for the UK. On offshore wind, we are doing well on generation—lots of people say that it was started by the last Labour Government—but not on delivering the jobs in offshore wind. Denmark has three times as many jobs in wind energy as us, with about a tenth of the population. Then look at other areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) spoke eloquently about steel: there are already 23 clean steel demonstration plants across Europe. How many are there in the UK? None. Across Europe, 40 gigafactories are expected to open by 2030. In the UK only one is certain. Alarmingly—this is the consequence of the onshore wind policy—the number of jobs in solar and onshore wind has actually fallen over the last five years in Britain because of the blockages in the system. That is why the Institute of Directors said just days before the Budget:

“The UK deserves nothing less than its own version of the Inflation Reduction Act”.

And the CBI pointed out our failure on spending.

I was very disappointed by the Budget. It was the moment to turn it around. It turns out there was no new money for carbon capture, but the promise of £1 billion some time in the future. I am old enough to remember when there was a £1 billion carbon capture and storage plan. It was announced 15 years ago by the last Labour Government, but was cancelled by this Government. The other boast was a reheated announcement of a competition for small modular reactors. We are in favour of new nuclear, but a reannouncement from 2015 will not make it happen.

There was warm praise for Lord Heseltine, which I agree with. I remember Lord Heseltine saying he would intervene before breakfast, lunch and dinner, and then wake up the next morning and intervene again before breakfast. That is not the character of this Government. What was the Government’s reaction to President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act? The Energy Secretary called it “dangerous”, the Business Secretary said it was “protectionist”, and the Chancellor did not support it. As if crying foul is going to stop the race. It will not stop the race; it will leave us behind. I do not believe that the Government get what a modern industrial policy looks like. We needed a new national wealth fund to invest in the industries of the future. We needed GB Energy, a proper publicly owned energy generation company, to invest in all forms of low carbon generation. We need a sprint for zero-carbon power by 2030. We need a plan to insulate 19 million cold, draughty homes. We got none of that from this Budget, but that is what a Labour Government would do.

In their failure to grasp the future, the Government show why it is high time they were consigned to the past. After 13 years of their failure, the last thing we need is another five years. They have the wrong priorities. They have no proper plan for the future. They cannot provide the leadership the country needs. It is time for change.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Five-minute limit. I call Simon Clarke.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Edward Miliband Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 10th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I appreciate that the Minister was as brief as he could be, given that he took interventions, but I think we will have to start with a time limit of four minutes rather than five minutes.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I will try to be as brief as I can, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to say to the Minister that we should note the progress made in the removal of the law-breaking clauses from part 5. What has essentially happened here is that the Joint Committee set up to deal with the outstanding issues on the Northern Ireland protocol has dealt with the issues on the Northern Ireland protocol. We are in a slightly through-the-looking-glass world here. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster this week described Maroš Šefčovič, the Vice President of the Commission, and his team as displaying

“pragmatism, collaborative spirit and determination to get a deal done that would work for both sides.”—[Official Report, 9 December 2020; Vol. 685, c. 847.]

These are the same people the Prime Minister described in his Second Reading speech in September as being

“willing to go to extreme and unreasonable lengths”.—[Official Report, 14 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 42.]

He also said that they had engaged in an “extraordinary threat” and refused to take the “revolver off the table”.

There are two conclusions we can draw from this sequence of events. The first is that Mr Šefčovič has changed his whole character, attitude and personality in three months; the other is the Prime Minister has a man who will make up any old nonsense for political advantage. I tend to the latter view.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Edward Miliband]

I am going to make some progress; lots of people want to speak and there is not much time.

With the law-breaking powers that undermined our reputation in the world gone, we are left with the legal but, I believe, deeply flawed proposals for undermining our shared governance at home. I am glad that the other place has, by large majorities, stuck with the insistence on upholding the devolution settlement, particularly in respect of common frameworks. I say to the Minister that this is absolutely critical to the kind of country we want to build post Brexit. We want a functioning UK internal market, but we believe that can be achieved in a way that upholds high standards and allows devolved Governments both to have a voice in setting those standards and to make choices in devolved areas appropriate for each nation. The principle is clear: we have a system of governance based not any more on power hoarded at Westminster but on power shared. That should be respected.

All of that brings me to Lords amendments 1B, 1C and 1D. I hope that in the course of the coming days the Minister, with his colleagues, will reflect on this: the Government say that they support common frameworks, that they are a great innovation and that they are proud of them—and they are a good innovation in many senses—so why not give them legislative backing?

This is quite an arcane debate, so I wish to make it as simple as I can and return the example of single-use plastics, which I mentioned on Monday, to show the difference between the common frameworks approach proposed by Lord Hope and others and the Government’s approach. Environmental policy, including on plastics, is a devolved question. Under the EU rules we currently have, the Welsh Government, for example, could ban the production and sale of single-use plastics in Wales; under the Bill as it stood when it went to the other place, the Government of Wales would not be able to ban their sale because the UK Government do not propose to ban such plastics themselves. Because of the market access principle and the way it is implemented, the lowest standard in one Parliament will be the standard for all, which means that Welsh shops will have to stock these plastics. I do not believe that that respects the devolution principle. The power may be formally devolved, but in essence it is rendered ineffective by the approach taken in the Bill, which takes control back to Westminster. If the Minister can explain why it does respect devolution, perhaps he should do so, but I have not heard a good explanation.

What is the alternative to that? The alternative is the common frameworks approach, which provides a different way forward by attempting to find consensus for high standards among the four nations while respecting devolved powers and the ability to diverge through agreement. That is what Lord Hope’s amendments seek to do, which is why we support those amendments and will, indeed, seek a vote on them.

Lords amendments 8L, 13 and 56 also seek to preserve the ability for there to be higher standards in different nations, where they can be justified. Again, this is about our vision for the future. Instead of a race to the bottom, we want to see a race to the top on standards. We have seen this over the course of devolution: on the smoking ban, plastic bags and a whole range of issues, we have seen experimentation in different nations drive up standards. I say to the Minister that both sets of amendments are the right thing to do to respect the devolution principle, and I believe they are consistent with the internal market that we want to see.

I turn briefly to Lords amendments 48B and 48C, which would oblige agreement with the devolved Administrations before there was spending in devolved areas. If anything, this is a clearer and more simple test of the Government’s real intentions. They say that they believe in devolution. The city deals are worked out jointly with the devolved Administrations; the Government are taking enormously wide powers in the Bill on spending in devolved areas. If this is not about hoarding power to Westminster, the Government can surely agree to the proposal that such spending should have the consent of devolved Administrations. This is about the principle of shared governance. I make the point that that was certainly the case in relation to EU structural funds. The Minister set out some proposals on the shared prosperity fund, but the Bill proposes much wider powers in relation to spending in devolved areas. If this is not a power grab and is not about hoarding power to Westminster, surely it is possible to say, “Yes, this spending should be agreed with the devolved nations.” If the Government refuse to accept the amendment, they slightly give the game away.

I think there is a big picture here, which is that, as I said on Monday, all of us who believe in the United Kingdom must, I believe, go the extra mile to protect devolution. I think it is incredibly important. It is the key to keeping our United Kingdom together, in my view. While we welcome the removal of the offending parts of part 5, this Bill just does a bad job of doing that, I am afraid, and I think the other place is telling the Government that loud and clear. I am very struck, by the way, that the Conservatives who voted for the amendments yesterday—Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Dunlop, to take two examples—are people who are steeped in this issue as Conservatives and are incredibly keen to protect both the devolution settlements and the Union.

I say to the Minister that we want the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill to reach the statute book. It must happen, however, in a way that does not ride roughshod over the way we are governed. I hope very much, for the sake of the United Kingdom and for the sake of respecting the devolution settlements, that the Government will reflect on this over the coming days.

[Sir William Cash]

In a nutshell, I am concerned about the fact that the Government have not insisted on this disagreement with respect to the notwithstanding clauses. I do not have time to go into all the detail, but I would simply say this. They remain needed, and I have put down amendments this afternoon to the Taxation (Post-transition Period) Bill for next week for the same reason.

The first thing is that this is to do with sovereignty and with judicial powers. It is to do with the fact that the notwithstanding clauses, with the use of the words “notwithstanding” and “whatsoever”, actually deal with the job effectively, and we should not take them away when we do not even know what the text from the Joint Committee is and we have just in effect been told that decisions are taken. There is this new clause talking about guidance. Guidance on what—on what agreement? We have not seen it, and we do not know what it means. I shall therefore almost certainly abstain on that at the very least.

The second thing is the question of what the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said yesterday—he knew perfectly well when he used the word “Factortame” what he meant. It is what I have been talking about in respect of, for example, the quashing of Acts of Parliament: the ability of the courts under the rubric of European law to be able to take action to strike down UK law. Those principles may be retained—indeed, I believe it is more than possible that that would actually happen. There is a necessity to ensure that it does not happen when we have had a referendum, we have had Acts of Parliament and we have had section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Act) passed, all of which enables us to be able to provide for these notwithstanding clauses.

We should not remove these clauses on the basis of a jeu d’esprit or leave them out on the basis that everything is now all right in respect of these absurd allegations over breaches of international law, which are complete nonsense. Nobody has put forward a single argument in the House of Lords to substantiate the allegation that there is a breach of international law. In fact, the reality is that article 46 of the Vienna convention deals with these matters, and it is therefore perfectly proper for us to keep the clauses. I believe that we need to retain them not just as a safety net or as belt and braces, but because it may well turn out to be necessary to avoid, for example, either the House of Lords or the courts, in extremis, taking action the effect of which would be to undermine the Brexit process. That is the key issue. It is about sovereignty, which the British people have made clear is what they want—the same applies to the red wall seats, as the Labour party knows only too well.

The bottom line, therefore, is that I want an assurance from the Minister that measures will be taken in legislation—in primary legislation—to restore those notwithstanding clauses. I have discussed this with our team in the Whips Office today. I hope the Minister will simply say, “Yes, we will take note of what my hon. Friend has said, and indeed will give effect to it if we find that, at the end of this weekend, it is necessary to return those clauses to the taxation Bill and also, if necessary, to this Bill,” but without prejudicing the safety of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill in its entirety as it stands at the moment.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Edward Miliband Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Monday 7th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Colleagues will see that there are a large number of right hon. and hon. Members who want to contribute to this debate. If we have any chance of getting them in, I will have to start with an immediate five-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches, but that may well have to go down.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be opposite the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully). This big Bill began its life with the Prime Minister, then the Secretary of State and now it is a pleasure to be opposite him. I must say that I have enormous respect for him, but I did feel that I was living in a parallel universe when I heard him this afternoon. This Bill has been absolutely savaged in the other place. It has been absolutely savaged not just on international law, but on devolution as well, not just by Opposition parties, not just by Cross-Benchers, not simply by the former Lord Chief Justice or the Archbishop of Canterbury, but by the heart of the Conservative party—by Lord Howard, Lord Hague, Lord Clarke, Lord Cormack, Lord Lamont, and Lord Barwell, the former chief of staff to the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). The right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) laughs from a sedentary position. He may not consider him exactly Conservative, but he is a Conservative peer. Believe it or not, Madam Deputy Speaker, even the Duke of Wellington spoke out against this Bill. I gather that he has recently left the Conservative party—and who can blame him?—but nevertheless, he said this:

“In a single piece of proposed legislation, the Government have managed to antagonise almost everyone, including a multitude of counterparties and international public opinion.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 October 2020; Vol. 806, c. 1342.]

The Duke of Wellington is right, and given his family history around our relationship with Europe, he is in a position to know. That is why we saw the largest defeat in a generation on this Bill, including 44 Conservative peers, seven former Conservative Cabinet Ministers and many other former Ministers.

I make that point because I think we heard the beginnings of the grinding wheels of the climbdown in what the Minister was saying. After three months of posturing, undermining our reputation in the world, today, an hour before the debate begins, we perhaps see some preparations for the brakes being applied before we go over the cliff. I am not going to give the Government any credit for that, and I do not take their word for it either. The one thing that this whole sorry saga has shown the world beyond any doubt is that this Government’s word is not their bond—they cannot be trusted, because they are willing to rip up international agreements they made less than a year ago.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I was going to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on endorsing the hereditary principle, which I did not know he was such a big supporter of. The real question I want to ask him is, what should a state do if it finds that its obligations under one treaty conflict with those under another treaty or its own constitutional law?

[Edward Miliband]

As the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) says, do not sign it, but I make another point. This is an agreement that the Government signed, and as the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) exposed, under article 16 of the protocol, there is not only a Joint Committee set up but a capacity for unilateral action in the case of social and economic disruption. He asked whether the protection will still be in place for unilateral action if these clauses go away—I can answer him, since the Minister did not: yes, they will still be in place, because they were in place all along. This has all been a completely unnecessary charade.

It is not just on international law that this Bill was savaged; it was savaged on devolution as well. This is very important, because it goes to the heart of the way we are governed as a country and the heart of our future as a country. Like the Government, the Opposition believe in our United Kingdom, but many people—including Conservatives—feel that this Bill deeply undermines devolution. Let us just listen to Lord Dunlop. For the benefit of the House, Lord Dunlop is the Government’s devolution guru—he is the guy advising the Government on devolution. He describes the Bill as

“an unnecessarily heavy-handed approach to balancing the demands of free trade within the UK with respect for the roles and responsibilities of devolved institutions.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 October 2020; Vol. 806, c. 1336.]

He also says that the Government should

“think long and hard before overturning…on the back of Conservative votes alone, any sensible changes”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 November 2020; Vol. 807, c. 585.]

made to the Bill on devolution. So on devolution and international law, the Bill has been savaged.

Something has changed in Government on the Bill during the last three months. The truth is that the top brass of Government are running a million miles from the Bill, not just on international law but on devolution as well. We learned a few days ago from the very reliable Paul Waugh that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has some thoughts on the Bill. He wrote:

“Even some Whitehall officials were baffled why the bill was drafted in the first place.”

He went on:

“Sources tell me that Gove has been looking at ways to either amend the devolution section of the bill, or ditch it altogether. If the whole bill is quietly left”—

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

It is untrue.

[Edward Miliband]

The hon. Gentleman says that that is completely untrue. I hope it is true, in the following sense: unless we remove the provisions in the Bill on lawbreaking and amend the provisions on devolution, we are massively undermining the Union, because as I will explain, we are departing from the principles of shared governance that we have developed over 20 years.

It is not surprising that the Government top brass are running from this Bill. Has it succeeded in improving our international standing? No—it has been calamitous, embarrassing and toxic for our international reputation. President-elect Biden, among others, is deeply concerned about the Bill. Has it succeeded in upholding and strengthening the United Kingdom, which I know the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) supports? No, it has not—it has given a stick with which those who want to undermine the United Kingdom can beat the Government.

Has the Bill succeeded in getting the Brexit deal that the Government told us it would hasten? Remember what they said—that it would show we were standing up to the EU, show that we meant business and face them down. This is a very important day to be talking about this issue. Where is the deal then, less than a month before the end of the transition period? Where is the deal? As a country, we desperately need a deal for business, workers and our economy. It is 12 weeks since this piece of legislation had its Second Reading and still no deal has been struck. And on this of all days the Government choose to bring this Bill back to the House. Our message to the Government is simple: deliver the deal that they said was oven-ready so that business can plan, even in these short weeks. Deliver what was promised.

Let me turn to the detail of the Lords amendments from the Opposition point of view. I start by going back to the issue of the rule of law. As I said, Members across all parties in the other place worked together to defeat the Government on part 5 of the Bill. I cannot do any better than Lord Howard—I have never said that before—who said:

“I do not want”

the UK

“to be an independent sovereign state that chooses as one of the first assertions of that sovereignty to break its word, to break the law and to renege on a treaty that it signed barely a year ago.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 October 2020; Vol. 806, c. 1295.]

That is not some remoaner, as I think the saying goes—it is not some person who voted remain; it is Lord Howard, a Brexiteer and the former leader of the Conservative party.

The House could instead listen to Lord Cormack, who said

“this is shameful; there is no other word for it. I am deeply ashamed that a Conservative Government should have embarked on this course.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 October 2020; Vol. 806, c. 1301.]

I am proud to be defending the rule of law.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Would the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to give way on that point?

[Edward Miliband]

It is always a pleasure to give way to the hon. Gentleman, so I shall.

[Sir William Cash]

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman recalls the fact that section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 was passed not only by the House of Commons—by 120 votes—but by the House of Lords itself. That contained the same principle regarding the notwithstanding arrangements specifically in relation to section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

[Edward Miliband]

I think the hon. Gentleman and I have had this exchange before. The fact is that the reason this Bill has caused such concern—among five former Prime Ministers and all the people in the House of Lords I have mentioned—is that it will rip up a treaty that we signed. That message has been sent loud and clear around the world. As I said, there is already provision in article 16 of the protocol for unilateral action in the event of

“serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties”.

The provisions are not only wrong, then, but unnecessary.

I wish to deal with the “insurance policy” argument that has been put forward—the Minister used the term “safety net”. This legislation is not a safety net or an insurance policy; it is a trapdoor for us, and I will tell him why. Let us say that the worst happens and we fail to get a deal, and we then trigger these provisions. What then? We set off an escalating dispute with the EU, and we do not know where that dispute ends; we further alienate President-elect Biden and scupper any chances of a US trade deal; and we destabilise the politics of Northern Ireland. This is no insurance policy; it is a guarantee of the destabilisation of our country piled on to no deal—in other words, the very last thing the country needs. That is why we will vote to uphold the Lords amendments that keep part 5 out of the Bill.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Of course we all want agreement and we all want a trade deal, but what happens if relations break down? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, first and foremost, the Labour party is a Unionist party that believes 100% in the economic integrity of the United Kingdom and will not act as a poodle for nationalists? Can he give me an absolute guarantee that if relations break down and we reject this Bill, we will not be in a very difficult place in terms of the economic integrity of the United Kingdom?

[Edward Miliband]

The right hon. Gentleman and I agree absolutely about the United Kingdom, and I am now going to come on to why I have such fear about this Bill. I fear that it is ignorant and blundering on the most important question about the way in which we share power across the United Kingdom. My fear about that and about the Bill is that it has given those who want to undermine the United Kingdom a further weapon with which to do so. That is why I want to turn to the devolution aspects of the Bill.

I particularly want to put on record my thanks to Lord Hope, former Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice General, for his work on the Bill. The common frameworks are a complex issue, but it is worth spending some time explaining them. The common frameworks process—the Government deserve some credit for this—was established in 2017 to enable us to agree high standards across the United Kingdom and manage any divergence in those standards. The problem with the Bill is that there is no mention of common frameworks. Instead, it provides a blunderbuss principle that the lowest standard in one jurisdiction is the standard for all, with no voice for the devolved nations.

Take the issue of single-use plastics, which is a very concrete example. The Welsh Government want to legislate to ban the use of single-use plastics, but the problem is that the Bill as it stands enables the UK Parliament to simply come along, without discussion and without a voice for the Welsh Government, and legislate to stop them doing that. In a written answer earlier this month, they said very clearly that they believe that they will not be able to make that legislation stick. The Bill in its current form allows the UK Government simply to undercut the powers of the devolved Administrations in key devolved areas, including the use of plastics, other environmental standards, animal welfare and other consumer standards. That is very serious, because the common frameworks are a way in which we can both secure high standards—this is the intention of Lord Hope—and manage divergence when it occurs across the United Kingdom.

[Jonathan Edwards]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a very valid point. Does he agree that the problem with the Bill is that it enables the British Government, through its control of the UK Parliament, to become like a boa constrictor around the devolved Parliaments, restricting their ability to act in the policy fields for which they have responsibility?

[Edward Miliband]

However we describe it, I do not believe that the Bill properly respects the principles of devolution. These are principles that we have developed in a very British way, in a sense, over the past 20 years or so. The principles of devolution are, I think, principles that it is crucial that we uphold. I ask the Minister to think again. He should think again, and should agree to Lord Hope’s amendments, which put the common frameworks into the Bill. It makes no sense that the Governments of the four nations have spent three years working on the common frameworks only for them to make no appearance in the Bill.

Then we have a related issue, which is that in the absence of legislation for the common frameworks—the Minister mentioned this—amendment 12 seeks a wider set of exclusions for market access principles. The reason for that is very simple. In the absence of common frameworks, the market access principles apply with very narrow exclusions—on human, animal and plant health, I think—so if the Government are not willing to agree on the common frameworks, another way forward would be to have broader exclusions that allowed the devolved nations to uphold their powers. This is very important. It is about whether powers that have been devolved over 20 years are effective or ineffective, and whether this Parliament can simply override them without a voice for the devolved nations. These are deeply serious issues, and I think that their importance is recognised by Conservatives such as Lord Dunlop. 

Let us be absolutely clear what will happen if the old version of the Bill is restored and passed into law—this is a sort of prediction, but I am afraid that this is what will happen: this is a recipe for a constitutional punch-up within a very short period of the Bill’s becoming law. Frankly, if that does not happen naturally, it will be provoked by those who wish to have the punch-up. The Government will find themselves accused, rightly, of undermining the devolution settlement, and it would be a disaster for those who believe in the United Kingdom—and I think that includes the Government. The most generous interpretation is that the Government have been cavalier and have blundered into this. [Interruption.] Yes, that may be too generous. I hope that they will put it right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

On that point, the national infrastructure strategy has just been published, and under the heading,

“changing how decisions are taken”,

it says:

“Increasing the UK government’s ability to invest directly in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland through the UK Internal Market Bill”.

Does that not just smack of, “We’ll spend the money and we’ll make the decisions, and it won’t be collaborative at all.”?

[Edward Miliband]

I think there is a very legitimate anxiety, which I hope the Minister will reflect on. Again, it was expressed in the Lords. Yes, the Government were defeated in the Lords—all Governments get defeated in the Lords at some point—but we are talking about unprecedented margins, because of the depth and breadth of concern among their lordships about the Bill, including on devolution. In a sense, because the Bill went through so quickly here, there was less time for us to discuss the devolution issues, and the focus was more on international law, but there is deep concern about this.

It is the same on state aid. We support a UK-wide state aid regime, but once again there was no mechanism in the Bill to engage with the devolved nations on setting out this regime. Again, the best that can be said is that maybe the Government have blundered in; the worst would be that they simply do not believe in giving power away when it comes to it in practice; they believe in holding it here. We cannot overestimate the seriousness of this collection of devolution issues. I believe deeply in the United Kingdom; the way we uphold it is by upholding the settlements of the last 20 years, and recognising that commitment to shared governance, but that is not what this Bill does.

[Ian Paisley]

I make this point very genuinely. Fidelity to devolution is now being expressed from the Dispatch Box, but Members from Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Assembly ask: where that was six, eight or 12 months ago? The Labour party was prepared to ride roughshod over the views of the people of Northern Ireland on the issue of abortion, and to impose laws on Northern Ireland that are there forever, even though the Northern Ireland Assembly has a completely different view from this House on those matters. This fidelity to devolution rings very hollow tonight in many houses in Northern Ireland.

[Edward Miliband]

The hon. Gentleman and I have known each other a long time, and if one looks at the record of Labour Members on the devolution settlement, and at everything that has happened over the past 20 years, I think we have absolutely shown fidelity to that devolution settlement in what we have done. [Interruption.] I will conclude because lots of Members wish to speak.

This not just a technical discussion about the Lords amendments; it is about a much deeper set of issues to do with what kind of country we want to be. We must be a country that is confident of our place in the world, and in working with others on the basis of shared democratic principles. We must be a country that stands up for the rule of law, and that recognises that we will be better governed if we share and devolve power, and do not hoard it at Westminster. The Bill achieves none of those things. Indeed, it undermines them. I am afraid that is a mark of cavalier government—cavalier with our international standing, cavalier with the law, and cavalier with the United Kingdom. Labour Members will fight for the values that our country needs, and I hope that as the Bill proceeds back—and, I suspect, forth—from the other place, the Government will listen and work with us in the national interest.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

We will now have a time limit of five minutes.

Arcadia and Debenhams: Business Support and Job Retention

Edward Miliband Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to make a statement on support for business and the retention of jobs on the high street in light of the announcement of Arcadia entering administration and Debenhams going into liquidation.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)]

Speaking as the retail Minister, let me say that I hope the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) realises that although the Secretary of State is not here, we take this incredibly seriously. That is why I want to focus on the detail, because it is a worrying time for the retail sector, particularly for those affected by the announcements this week.

On Monday, Arcadia Group Ltd, which employs approximately 13,000 people, appointed administrators, who are assessing all options available to the group. They will honour orders made over the black Friday weekend. No redundancies have yet been announced and existing sales channels will continue to operate while administrators evaluate options. The Secretary of State has written to the Insolvency Service asking that it expedites consideration of the administrators’ report. Yesterday, Debenhams, which employs approximately 12,000 people, announced the decision of administrators to wind down the company. No redundancies have been announced and existing sales channels will continue to operate while administrators evaluate options. We know that this will be a worrying time for employees and their families, and we stand ready to support them. I pay a particular tribute to the hard-working staff, who have kept these well recognised businesses going in difficult times for so long.

Although the Government have no role in the strategic direction or management of private retail companies, we are in regular contact with both companies and the administrators in order to understand fully the situation they are facing. The coronavirus crisis has made life difficult for retailers such as Arcadia and Debenhams, particularly those that were already facing challenging trading conditions before the pandemic. We acted quickly at the start of the pandemic to deliver one of the most generous and comprehensive economic packages in the world. It included: the coronavirus job retention scheme, which up to 30 September had provided £7.7 billion-worth of support to companies in the retail and wholesale sector; removing all eligible properties in the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors from business rates for 12 months—that is worth more than £10 billion; cash grants of up to £25,000 for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses with a rateable value of between £15,000 and £51,000; more than £50 billion in business loans, which supported 9.6 million jobs and provided flexibility; and legislation to protect commercial tenants from eviction.

Through the plan for jobs, we have also announced a series of measures to protect, support and create jobs, including our £2 billion kickstart scheme and a doubling of the number of frontline work coaches, which will be important in this situation in particular. The Government have committed to supporting the retail sector, and we are working closely with industry through these unprecedented times, particularly to ensure the safe reopening of non-essential retail today. On Monday, my right hon. Friend the Communities Secretary encouraged local authorities to allow shops to open for extended hours, to accommodate more shoppers safely in the lead-up to Christmas. I will continue to work with the sector to meet future challenges. Indeed, I will co-chair the next meeting of the Retail Sector Council tomorrow to discuss our strategic approach to the sector. I have regular retail calls, including one last week, with representatives from Arcadia among the retailers on that call. We are confident that the sector has the skills, knowledge and drive to bounce back.

[Edward Miliband]

Let me join the Minister in expressing deep sympathy for those who are at risk of losing their jobs. The test of Government, and indeed the House, is whether that sympathy translates into action, so I have four specific questions for him.

First, Philip Green owes workers at Arcadia a moral duty. His family took from the company a dividend worth £1.2 billion, the largest in UK history, more than three times the size of the pension deficit. Workers at Arcadia should not pay the price of Philip Green’s greed, so will the Minister now publicly call for Philip Green to make good any shortfall in the pension scheme, and will he ensure that the Pensions Regulator takes all possible steps to make sure that that happens?

Secondly, we need to learn lessons. In the summer, Labour tabled amendments to the Corporate Governance and Insolvency Bill to make pension fund holders priority creditors when businesses went bust. The Minister said it was not necessary. Does he now agree that that was a mistake, that that change would have better protected the pensions at Arcadia and that this should be put right through legislation in the future?

Thirdly, on the workers at Debenhams and Arcadia facing redundancy, given the scale of redundancies and the grim economic backdrop, will the Minister look at providing specific and targeted help for them to get back into work? Fourthly, we have an emergency on our high streets, with an estimated 20,000 shops closing and 200,000 workers losing their jobs since the economic crisis began. While we welcome the support that has been provided, will he recognise that the Government must do more: extend the rent evictions moratorium beyond December, when it is due to expire; increase support for hospitality businesses, which was called for across the House yesterday; and address the massive disadvantage that high street businesses face around business rates compared with online retailers?

Today is a day of great news on the vaccine, but the Government have a massive responsibility to preserve the businesses and jobs we will need on the other side of this crisis. They are still not acting on a scale that meets the economic emergency our country faces. They need to do so.

[Paul Scully]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising some really important points. On pension schemes and support for those facing redundancy, the majority of defined pension schemes are run effectively. We are fortunate to have a robust and flexible system of pension protection in the UK. The independent Pensions Regulator has a range of powers to protect pension schemes, and it works closely with those involved. For schemes where the employer goes insolvent, the Pension Protection Fund is there to help protect the members. Anybody already in receipt of a pension will continue to be paid, and other members will receive at least Pension Protection Fund compensation levels. The Pension Protection Fund is confident that its funding plan investment approach positions it well to weather the current market volatility and future challenges.

It would not be appropriate at this stage for Ministers to comment on individual cases, which are a matter for the regulator. However, in respect of staff facing possible redundancy, the Department for Work and Pensions’ rapid response service has been in ongoing conversations with Debenhams and has now been in contact with Arcadia. Both have been offered support by the rapid response service, including connecting people to jobs in the labour market, helping with job search—including CV writing, interview skills, where to find jobs and how to apply for them—helping to identify transferable skills and skills gaps linked to the local labour market and what benefits they may get and how to claim. I talked about the fact that we have doubled the number of workplace support staff in Jobcentre Plus. Clearly, knowing where the big stores are, for Debenhams in particular, we will be able to offer that sort of targeted support.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about his proposed changes to the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill. This was a matter of balance, because elevating pension debts, which can often be quite large, will by its very nature dilute the amount available to trade and credit suppliers, but also to other suppliers, including people with unpaid wages. It is trying to get that complexity and balance right.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman talks about hospitality and support for other sectors. Clearly, the high street is an ecosystem—it is not only about shops and retail. We need to make sure that we do as much as we can to continue to wrap our arms around the economy at this particularly challenging time. As he acknowledges, there is light at the end of the tunnel, but we must not take our foot off the gas. We must remain alert, in terms of our own behaviours, as community members going up and down the high street, shopping local where we can to support retailers as they remain open, but also as a Government, making sure that we support the retail and hospitality sectors through both the support that I mentioned but also through encouraging them to be able to trade and remain open in all three tiers as best we can.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Edward Miliband Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 29th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I join the Business Secretary in paying tribute to the Public Bill Office for the work that it has done. I also profoundly thank my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) and for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) for the incredible hard work they did during the Bill’s Committee and Report stages. I am pleased to see the Business Secretary back in his place for the Third Reading of the Bill. I am afraid to have to report that the person deputising for him on Second Reading did not do a great job. Next time the Prime Minister asks to fill in for him, I suggest that he tells him to go elsewhere and he will do a very fine job, thank you.

Let me go to the heart of the debates around this Bill. We support the principle of the internal market, but there are two profound flaws at the heart of the Bill, and that is why we will vote against it tonight. On devolution, Labour Members believe deeply in our Union, but the strength of our Union lies in sharing power, not centralising it, and this Bill does not learn that lesson. It makes a choice to impose the rule that the lowest regulatory standard in one Parliament must be the standard for all without a proper voice for the devolved Administrations. I have read carefully the debate in Committee and on Report, and there has been no proper answer forthcoming from the Government about why they did not seek to legislate for the common frameworks, as they could easily have done. Nor can they explain why they are taking such broad powers over public spending in specific devolved areas of competence.

[Joanna Cherry]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. Does he agree that the great scheme of devolution of the illustrious former leader of the Labour party in Scotland and Scotland’s first First Minister under devolution, Donald Dewar, was that every power would be devolved unless specifically reserved? What is wrong with the Bill is that it gives the British Government the power to override devolved powers. That is the heart of the matter.

[Edward Miliband]

There is an important point here. To take the example of animal welfare or food safety, those powers remain devolved, but they are devolved in name only, because by imposing the minimum standard as the lowest standard for all legislatures, those powers are seriously undermined. I have to say to the Business Secretary that I fear that the Bill will only strengthen the hand of those who want to break up the UK.

On international law, nobody should be in any doubt about the damage already done by the Bill. I do not blame the Business Secretary, but this law-breaking Bill has been noticed around the world by not just the Irish Government, not just our EU negotiating partners, and not just Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi, who the Government can dismiss. Even President Trump’s Northern Ireland envoy Mick Mulvaney visited the Republic of Ireland yesterday and said:

“I think anyone who looks at the situation”—

with the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill—

“understands there could be a series of events that could put the Good Friday Agreement at risk.”

When the Trump Administration start expressing concern about your adherence to international agreements and the rule of law, you know you are in trouble. That is how bad this Bill is.

[Sir William Cash]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Edward Miliband]

I am going to carry on.

It is important to hear the words of the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) in her coruscating and brilliant speech in Committee. Government Members are rolling their eyes about the former Prime Minister. She said that,

“the Government are acting recklessly and irresponsibly, with no thought to the long-term impact on the United Kingdom’s standing in the world.”—[Official Report, 21 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 668.]

That is what a former Prime Minister—the previous Prime Minister—of this country said.

[Sir William Cash]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that in fact, in the past, there have been substantial breaches of international law by Labour Governments as well as by other ones? Furthermore, does he believe that the Iraq war was lawful?

[Edward Miliband]

This is unprecedented in the following sense: the Government are coming along and breaking an international agreement they signed less than a year ago. I have heard the hon. Gentleman, and I have read the debates on the issue, and he certainly has not produced an example in any way remotely similar to what is happening in the Bill.

I want to develop my argument, because an important point has been understated in the debate since Second Reading. The clauses are not simply wrong, as so many hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise; they are not simply unnecessary, because the protocol has mechanisms to deal with the issues at hand; but there has been a notable event since Second Reading that has exposed the Government’s strategy even further, which is the cancellation of the Budget.

Let us recall the Government’s fig leaf designed to hide their embarrassment. The issue was at-risk goods travelling from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. The whole case made by the Prime Minister was that the Bill was necessary to prevent the blockade of goods from GB into NI. The threat was described as “extraordinary” and the very reason to break international law, but the measures, as we now know, to break the law in this Bill, do not, as he had to admit at Second Reading, deal with the issue of GB to NI trade.

The excuse was that GB to NI issues would be dealt with in the Finance Bill, as was explicit in the statement put out on 17 September by the Government, which said:

“Further measures will be set out in the Finance Bill, relating to tariffs on GB-NI movements, including the same Parliamentary process that the Government has committed to for the UKIM Bill.”

In case it escaped the House’s attention, the Budget has been cancelled and so has the Finance Bill. So where now is the mechanism to deal with the extraordinary threat that we face as a country? Can anyone on the Government side tell me where it is? The country faces an extraordinary threat that has to be dealt with, but the legislation we are considering does not cover it, nor does any legislation even in view.

I will give way to the Business Secretary if he would like to tell me how this will be dealt with. There is no answer—he would prefer not to. I do not blame the Business Secretary, because let us be clear what has happened here: the legislative hooligans in Downing Street who dreamed this up have moved on to something else, but the Bill is still with us, and so we are going through all this pain, all this grief, all this damage to our international reputation, and the central argument on which it is based is not even covered by any legislation.

What are we to conclude? Was this all a charade—a “dead cat” strategy, as I think it is known—to distract attention? Was it a trap designed to pretend that we were rerunning remain versus leave? Was it perhaps a Government strategy to pretend to their Back Benchers that the Government are willing to break the law in order to soften them up on accepting concessions in the endgame of the negotiations with the EU. Whatever the excuse, all of them reflect so badly on the Government.

We are at a grave national moment—our gravest for a generation, because of coronavirus. We are trying to conclude a Brexit deal, which is vital for our country. We need new trade deals, in which our word is our bond. Yet the Government play these appalling games, thinking so little of their Back Benchers that they think they can pull the wool over their eyes; willing to resile from a treaty that they signed, for a day’s headlines; playing fast and loose with the law for short-term gain.

The Bill will get its majority and go to the other place, but their lordships should know that, across this House, there is deep concern about it. That has been shown again and again by good people on both sides of the House in the last few weeks. I urge the other place to bring the Bill into compliance with the rule of law and salvage our reputation. But we in the House of Commons have a chance tonight to show our concern again. It is an indefensible Bill. It damages our country. It is wrong and self-defeating. I urge Members on all sides to oppose it tonight.

Business and Planning Bill

Edward Miliband Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Christopher Pincher]

This Bill is an essential part of the Government’s response to the effects of covid-19 and the restrictions that have been keeping people safe. We know that these restrictions have come at a considerable cost to our economy and to people’s lives. We all have constituents who are desperate to get back to work— desperate to get back to their normal lives. This Bill will help to make that happen. This Bill will help the country get back on its feet.

The amendments that we are considering this evening do not disrupt the thrust of the Bill as it left this House. In fact, they improve it. It is worth remembering that when this Bill was last in this House we debated it over one afternoon—unusually fast, as several hon. and right hon. Members have said—to ensure that it would come into force before the summer recess and give the greatest possible benefit to the country.  The Bill has received more extensive consideration in the other place, and I hope that we can agree the amendments.

I am grateful to hon. and right hon. Members for their constructive engagement with the Bill. I am particularly grateful to the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and his colleagues in the Opposition for their collaboration. Members’ thoughtfulness and involvement have been a great help in improving this legislation, and I am pleased with the result of our deliberations. I should also like to recognise parliamentary counsel, the legal advisers and staff of the other place and of this House for marshalling this Bill through all its stages.

I shall briefly summarise the amendments that have been made in the other place. First, we have improved the pavement licensing measures in several ways. We have ensured that authorities must have regard to the needs of disabled people when considering whether to grant a pavement licence, and we have ensured that non-smoking areas will be provided by businesses that are granted pavement licences. We have also ensured that local authorities can delegate decisions about pavement licences to sub-committees or to officials, and that regulations issued by Government will be laid before Parliament. Those amendments are in keeping with the policy intention of the pavement licence provisions and improve them. I therefore hope that the House will support the amendments.

Secondly, we have amended the provisions about off-sales of alcohol to combat antisocial behaviour. I am especially grateful to hon. Members for their involvement in this issue—especially my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan); my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), who brought to bear her considerable experience as the leader of a London council; and the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), who spoke eloquently when we last debated the matter in this House. I believe that collectively, they have improved the Bill. The Bill now limits off-sales to 11 pm at the latest, and any new permissions will not allow the sale of alcohol for consumption in outdoor areas of the premises that are already restricted by the premises licence. Making off-sales of alcohol easier will help the hospitality industry to recover more quickly, but in a way that does not encourage antisocial behaviour.

Thirdly, we have increased the extension of planning permission by one month. This is a modest extension, but it will provide further certainty and reassurance to developers and local authorities that planning permissions will not lapse unnecessarily as a result of the pandemic. Fourthly, in response to the report by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, any extension to the provisions can be made only when it is

“necessary or appropriate for a purpose linked to the coronavirus pandemic.”

That is an important clarification.

Finally, the Bill now amends section 78 of the Coronavirus Act 2020 so that the Government can make regulations to enable specific authorities to conduct their meetings remotely. These authorities were omitted from the Coronavirus Act because of the speed with which that legislation was passed, and now is the appropriate time to include them. I hope the House will agree these Lords amendments.

I am sure that hon. and right hon. Members agree that businesses throughout our country need the benefit of these provisions this summer. As someone once put it, we need to help to fix the economy while the sun is shining. If we do not pass this Bill today, it will not take effect until the autumn, and the country will lose out on the valuable provisions over the summer months. The Bill has been much improved and scrutinised in the other place, and it is an example of how Parliament can work quickly and effectively in the national interest and set the United Kingdom on a path to recovery. I therefore trust that the House will support all the Lords amendments.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I rise to support Lords amendment 1 and the other Lords amendments that have been sent back to us from the other place. This is an important Bill, as the Minister said—particularly so for the hospitality industry. The Minister made reference to the speed with which it went through this place, and I agree that it has benefited from consideration in the Lords. I join him in thanking all the people who have worked on the Bill, including the civil servants who worked on it at speed to ensure that it can help the hospitality industry and other industries in this time of crisis.

I will briefly refer to some of the changes made by their lordships. I agree with the Minister that limiting off-sales to 11 pm is an important change. I pay tribute to Government Members for their work on this issue, and I pay particular tribute to the campaign by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier). It is hard to say no to her, but she made a very important and correct case. Although it applies particularly to her constituency, it also applies elsewhere, and I understand why she made that case. Their lordships accepted it, and we should too.

The Minister is right to draw attention to the important issue of pavement licences and disability, which needs to be taken into consideration when local councils make decisions. The needs of the hospitality industry are clearly very important, but we cannot ignore the needs of disabled people in our country.

The other notable innovation of the Bill relates to smoke-free areas outside when additional licences are granted. That important change will enable people to enjoy the outside space—obviously, they are not able to take advantage of inside space in the old way—with the guarantee of a smoke-free environment. The Minister made reference to a number of other changes, which we support.

The one other point that I will make—I think the Minister and his colleagues will agree with this—is that although this is a necessary set of changes for the hospitality industry, it is not sufficient. We continue to have deep concerns about what we see as the premature ending of the furlough for that industry and other sectors that are in difficulty. With that said, I urge the House to support these Lords amendments.

[Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)]

I rise to support these amendments. On Second Reading, I called for a restriction on alcohol off-sales to 11 pm, so I am delighted that that amendment has been accepted. We need to strike the right balance between getting our economy up and running and the interests of residents, who in certain parts of London have been subject to a lot of anti-social behaviour—in particular, in Notting Hill in my constituency. These amendments strike the right balance, and I commend them to the House.

Budget Resolutions

Edward Miliband Excerpts

1st reading: House of Commons
Thursday 1st November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I am glad to follow the right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening). I want to focus on housing, which was where she ended her remarks. In particular, I want to focus on what the Secretary of State said in his opening speech, which is that this is the biggest domestic policy priority for the Government.

We should begin with a moment of candour. If we are looking across the piece at policy failures of Governments of both parties, we can see that this is the biggest single failure over the last generation. I am proud of some of the things that the previous Labour Government did, but we did not build enough homes, and this Government have not done so either.

I am serving on a social housing commission run by Shelter. It comprises residents of Grenfell Tower and people from across the political spectrum, such as Baroness Warsi and Lord O’Neill from the other place, and is precisely designed to try to fashion a new cross-party consensus on these issues.

Reading the Budget, I was encouraged by some of the measures in it. It mentions the broken housing market, to which the Secretary of State also referred today. I must confess that I am old enough to remember when such talk was part of living in a Marxist universe, but it is genuinely good that things have changed. It is a positive step that the Government have lifted the local authority borrowing cap, and indeed that they are providing housing associations with some money to build. They say that their measure on council house building will mean that 10,000 council homes are built each year, and that the housing association measure will lead to 13,000 being built over three years. The question at the heart of any analysis of this Budget on housing is: is that enough? I argue that it is not nearly enough.

Let me provide some context to this. The Secretary of State said that he wanted to be like Macmillan. Indeed, I think all of us can praise what Harold Macmillan’s Government did. Let me tell the House about the scale of building in that era. The 1951 to 1955 Government built an average of 193,000 social homes each and every year. That is more than this Government have built in the last seven years. Each and every year, the 1955 to 1964 Government built 116,000 homes, the 1964 to 1970 Government built 143,000 homes, and the 1970 to 1979 era saw the building of 116,000 homes. We are way off that.

[David Morris]

Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the Macmillan era was post-war, when Britain was bombed out and we had the Marshall fund to back us up?

[Edward Miliband]

I will get to the question of funding and whether it is an investment in the future. The figures I have read out are actually flattering to the era since 1979. I am genuinely saying that this a cross-party failure, because under the right to buy we have sold off 2 million homes since 1979—far more than we have built.

The question is, what do we do? My argument is that this is not just about a change in policy. It is actually about a change in the whole philosophy on social housing. I argue that there are three principles that have been in effect since ’79 and need to be replaced. These principles were brought in by the ’79 Government, but have not fundamentally changed.

The first principle is that the market will provide; the market will build. We know from experience, despite the many efforts of different Governments, that the structural barriers in the market such as developers, incentives to build for the high end of the market and the cost of land mean that the market will not provide sufficient housing at the scale and speed required. There is no historical evidence to suggest otherwise. Indeed, the figures show that it is not in the private sector that the failure to build is most pronounced compared with the 1970s; it is actually in the social housing sector.

The thing that we have all missed is that the social housing sector is the bedrock of an effectively functioning housing market. In other words, it does not just benefit those who live in social homes. It benefits everybody, because it is more likely to keep prices down and avoids some of the problems that we see in the private rented sector. The Government have to be fair and recognise—at least at the level of principle—that saying the market will build will not cut it any more, and that the Government need to play a substantial role when it comes to building.

[Mr Betts]

My right hon. Friend is making a valuable point. I think it was the last Housing Minister but four—now the Prime Minister’s chief of staff—who accepted that social house building provides continuity to the construction industry, as it does not go up and down with the cycles of the private sector. That is very important for maintaining skills in the industry in the long term.

[Edward Miliband]

My hon. Friend makes an important point.

The second principle is that we need to acknowledge that the Government have come to see social housing as a residual for the neediest in our society, but that was not the origin of social housing. It was a tool to meet the needs of middle and lower-income families. That is particularly relevant today, given that 2016 figures from Shelter show that 78% of private renting households cannot afford to buy, even with Help to Buy. Why should the choice for those families be confined to the often substandard and highly expensive private rented sector? They should have a chance of social housing too. As one of my fellow Shelter commissioners—who happens to be a Conservative—puts it, we need to think again of social housing as meeting aspiration and need. That is a fundamental change, but it was part of the original vision of everyone from Nye Bevan to Harold Macmillan.

The third principle relates to the intervention by the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris)—the question of where we put our money. Essentially, the choice that has been made since Lady Thatcher has been to put money into housing benefit and various subsidies including Help to Buy. What we have again missed is that investing in housing is investing in an essential part of our infrastructure. Dare I say it, it is as much a part of our essential infrastructure as transport—including High Speed 2—or schools and hospitals, and it is value for money because of the return on that investment.

In case hon. Members do not take my word for it, they can listen to Lord Porter, the Conservative chair of the Local Government Association. I have only just discovered Lord Porter—an important discovery. On Monday he proposed that we build not 10,000 but 100,000 social homes a year, saying:

“The gains are enormous. Investments in social housing could generate returns up to £320bn over 50 years, helping countless families along the way by creating local jobs and building homes people need and can afford.”

The reason I talk about those principles is that they drive the scale of the response. If we recognise the principles of the limits to the market, who social housing should be for and the that fact there is a return on investment—that to borrow to invest in social housing is a sensible move for the country—we will be led to a much bigger response than we saw in the Budget. As I said, it is good that the Government have changed course in a number of respects, but this is an era for boldness, not incrementalism, and I am afraid that the scale of boldness required is not in the Budget.

I will end by discussing why this really matters. It is actually about Brexit—I am sorry about that. The vote to leave was in part a cry of pain about the loss of hope and the loss of a sense of community. We should not idealise the past, but social housing was absolutely part of that. But this is not just about nostalgia. It is about whether people’s kids and grandkids will have a better life. And here’s the thing: in a world and a country where we seem divided on everything, this issue unites remain voters and leave voters, young people and old people, people in the south and people in the north. Whatever happens with Brexit, we need to bring the country together. I can think of nothing more likely to unite people across the divides than long-term investment in social housing, but it needs to be at scale. Incrementalism is not enough; we need a bolder offer. It is there in our history, from Bevan to Macmillan, and we need a Government who will discover it.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Yorkshire Devolution

Edward Miliband Excerpts

Tuesday 9th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I support the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis). On behalf of all Doncaster MPs, I congratulate him on securing this debate.

I want to make one very brief point. Devolution is about listening to local people, and the feeling in Doncaster could not be clearer. There was a unanimous view in the council—Labour, Conservative, Mexborough First and independent—in favour of the wider Yorkshire deal. The business community, through the chamber of commerce, said it wants a wider Yorkshire deal, and so did 85% of the public on a turnout higher than that for the police and crime commissioner elections. I appeal to the Minister not to impose on the people of Doncaster an election they do not want. Work with us, my hon. Friend and the coalition of the willing to create the deal we want, and go for my hon. Friend’s solution.