The Economy

Debate between John McDonnell and Nick Smith

Thursday 24th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment (g), at end add

‘but respectfully regret that the Gracious Speech fails to rebuild the UK economy, tackle the housing crisis, further pushes public services into crisis and contains no vision to bring this divided country back together; call on the Government to bring forward a plan to rebuild the economy so that it works in the interest of the many, not just handing out rewards to those at the top; and further call on the Government to address the climate emergency by bringing forward a green industrial revolution to decarbonise the economy and boost economic growth.’

Mr Speaker, may I just say this? This is the last time that you will be chairing a day of the Queen’s Speech debate, and I may not get the opportunity in other tribute debates to say this. It has been a privilege to serve in this House while you have been Speaker. Thank you.

I listened to the Prime Minister introducing the Queen’s Speech. What I always find most startling about the Prime Minister is his ability to create his own truth and, when confronted with any reality that contradicts his truth, to bluster his way through. I believe he believes that, with a combination of bluster and the occasional pretentious use of Latin, he can always avoid confronting reality or answering for it. So, if we can achieve anything in today’s debate, let us at least try to confront the reality of what some of our people face and assess whether the announcements in the Queen’s Speech in any way meet those challenges.

On the economy, the Prime Minister referred in his speech to “economic success” and “free market success”. He also said:

“in important respects this country is the greatest place to live and to be—the greatest place on earth.”—[Official Report, 14 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 19.]

I think many of us feel that way, but I just wish it was the same for everyone. For so many of our people, tragically, it is not at the moment. There is a multitude of statistics evidencing just how far the Prime Minister is out of touch and how he appears to have no understanding of what our people have gone through over nearly a decade. Let me start with three stark examples of what the austerity the Conservative party has inflicted on our people has meant and continues to mean, and which I deeply regret were not addressed in the Queen’s Speech.

First, on infant mortality and child poverty, earlier this month, the British Medical Journal published a research project into infant mortality. Declines in infant mortality have been reversed for the first time in 100 years. The research found that, between 2014 and 2017, there were 570 excess infant deaths. The research concluded that 172 of those infant deaths were associated with the increase in child poverty. Out there, there are nearly 200 families who are grieving as a result of the Government’s austerity policies. There is nothing in the Queen’s Speech—nothing—that will tackle the poverty affecting 14 million of our people, and nothing that will tackle the poverty that 4.5 million of our children are being brought up in, or help the 125,000 children who are forced to live in temporary accommodation. There is nothing to address the £3 billion funding gap local councils face in trying to provide the services needed to support those very families. I will not forget, and many Labour Members will not forget, that this is a Government who have closed over 500 Sure Start centres, the very institutions we founded to support those families and to prevent infant mortality and morbidity on the scale we have seen.

Let me take the second example of what the Tories have done to our people. Earlier this month, the Office for National Statistics reported a record number of deaths of homeless people in England and Wales in 2018. Last year, 726 homeless people died. That represents the highest year-to-year increase since data was first collected. The Government have cut £1 billion from support to the homeless since 2010, so it is hardly surprising that rough sleeping has risen by almost 165%. In London, rough sleeping has more than tripled since 2010. Again, there is nothing—nothing—in the Queen’s Speech to tackle the scourge of homelessness.

My third example is the distance between what the Government claim and what employment and wages are like in this country. The Prime Minister claimed that

“we have unemployment at its lowest level since 1974”.—[Official Report, 14 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 22.]

The reality is this: more than 3 million people are missing from the unemployment rate because they report themselves as “economically inactive,” we have over 2.5 million people counted as employed even though they work fewer than 15 hours a week and there are 3.7 million people in insecure work.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

The Government have received over £4 billion from the mineworkers’ pension scheme, despite not having paid a penny in. With retired miners getting by on a pension of, on average, £84 a week, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time for the Government to listen? This Queen’s Speech should announce a review of the scheme so that miners and their widows get a fair deal.

[John McDonnell]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that large numbers of Members are seeking to make speeches—I will take a number of interventions, but I will protect the time as best I can for others to speak.

Let me give my hon. Friend this assurance on that critical point: in our last Labour party manifesto, we promised that we would review the mineworkers’ pensions scheme—it is dear to my heart, because I was one of the administrators of the scheme soon after I left university, when I worked for the RMT—and we will review it because we want to lift miners and many miners’ widows out of the poverty that they now live in. We give that commitment.

I mentioned insecure work. There are now about 900,000 people on zero-hour contracts—up by 100,000 from a year ago—and real wages are still below pre-crisis levels. The Government like to talk about wage rises and wages rising at their fastest rate in a decade. It is a bizarre claim, because the Government have been in charge of the economy for the last decade, suppressing wages all through that period. According to the Financial Times, the UK was the only major economy where growth returned but wages fell. According to TUC calculations, since 2010, average pay has also fallen for 7.7 million low to middle-income earners, and 11.5 million middle to high-income earners. It is extraordinary that that was not even acknowledged in the Queen’s Speech—that we now have a low-pay, insecure-job economy that this Government have created over the last decade.

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

Debate between John McDonnell and Nick Smith

Tuesday 11th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) on securing this important debate. As a member of the Select Committee on Defence, she has considerable knowledge of such matters and it is interesting to hear her views on the issue.

Unmanned aerial vehicles can play a crucial role in keeping our servicemen and women on the front line safe. We know that the military operate in a hostile environment on the front line in Afghanistan, and convoys provide a target for rebels and improvised explosive devices. However, with the ability to scout their route with surveillance drones, commanders on the ground can avoid potential hazards quickly. Drones can also take the place of human pilots when carrying out dull, dangerous or dirty jobs, such as repetitive reconnaissance work, surveillance in hostile territory, or flying through areas where chemical or biological weapons have been used.

We can acknowledge that drones save the lives of many in our armed forces, but we must accept, as others have said, that there are civilian casualties and deaths from drones. That is principally an issue in Pakistan, and as “Panorama” reported yesterday, it affects real people, young and old, and has an indelible and devastating effect on their families and local communities. Therefore, drones must be used in accordance with international law, with every effort made to minimise civilian casualties.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I point to the Medact report that was launched a few months ago in the House of Commons—I was involved in that—which says that the weapon is not damage-free for users. We now have significant medical evidence from monitoring the psychological effects of drones on those who are engaged in their use. Although it initially appears to have no effect, it undermines psychological well-being.

[Nick Smith]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point. More research must be done in this field. It could be very important.

Like regular manned aircraft, drones come in many shapes and sizes. I understand that the Global Hawk has a wingspan of 116 feet, while the technology is developing so quickly that we may soon see drones the size of insects. What is going on is incredible. Things are moving very quickly. The US air force now has more flight hours with drones than with manned aircraft. This innovation will see all branches of the armed forces benefiting from the technology. It has been reported that the Royal Navy is investigating the development of marine drones to detect mines in important shipping routes.

Developments in the military sphere can also lead to changes in routine or unpleasant jobs in civilian life. We read that old silos in Sellafield that were sealed off and left undisturbed since the 1950s are finally being examined by scientists using drone technology. Who knows what we could learn from those important investigations? Difficult or repetitive tasks, such as patrolling borders or monitoring weather patterns, could also be made easier.

With important work being done on the front line and potentially life-saving developments in the pipeline, this technology offers significant capability and may soon offer a range of important domestic applications, so it is essential that we have an open debate about both the ethics of drones and their practical deployment. This is an important debate, and I am glad that we are starting to have it.