Sanctions

Debate between Kevan Jones and David Lammy

Tuesday 22nd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. I have already seen Ukrainian MPs saying today that they are disappointed that our sanctions regime does not go further.

We have sought to send a unified message across this House and to provide constructive opposition in the national interest. It is in that spirit that we approach today’s announcement. As the Minister knows, while we welcome these measures, we believe that they are too limited and too partial—five banks and just three individuals. The Prime Minister recognised at the Dispatch Box today that this move is a further invasion of Ukraine. It is very hard to square the rhetoric with the reality of these measures.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I have to agree with my right hon. Friend about the limitations of the sanctions on those individuals. However, does he agree that if the regulations’ definition of “involved person”, especially the reference to being

“involved in…obtaining a benefit from or supporting the Government of Russia”,

is interpreted widely with the right political will, it could take in a lot of individuals who have a lot of money salted in the UK, including a lot of the oligarchs who have property or other interests here?

[Mr Lammy]

My right hon. Friend is exactly right: it could, but it needs enforcement and we need to hear more individuals named. The danger in this debate is that the punishment does not befit the crime. I understand the Government’s desire to maintain a broader deterrent against further escalation, but it is also clear that a threshold has been crossed. The gravity of Putin’s actions requires a broader, firmer and fuller response, otherwise we risk his calculating that the rewards of aggression outweigh the costs.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between Kevan Jones and David Lammy

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

rose—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Will the Financial Secretary give way?

Finance Bill

Debate between Kevan Jones and David Lammy

Tuesday 6th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

That is patent nonsense, which is why so many hon. Members are shouting from a sedentary position.

What we see in the Bill is absolutely ideological. It is not the first time that the House has debated such ideological decisions, which have huge social consequences for people a long way from Westminster. On one side, we have an orthodoxy, a Conservative position, that says that we must reduce deficits at all costs, despite the social consequences. Behind that there is a desire to reduce the state and welfare at the same time. On the other side, consistently, over generations, we have progressive parties, and at the centre of those is the Labour party, which understands that the private and public sectors are co-dependent. They rely on each other.

There are times during difficult recessionary periods when the public sector must borrow to ensure growth. That is why I am hugely proud of the future jobs fund. That was a classic example of our Government borrowing £1 billion to create jobs and to ensure that the social plight that constituencies such as mine have seen in the past did not come to pass again. What an outrage. What a shame. How can hon. Members look at the young people of Tottenham, who now do not have that scheme and who will join the unemployment queues as a result of yet another catastrophic decision? We on the Labour Benches remember the failed youth training scheme, a joke scheme that was not really about jobs; it was about gerrymandering the figures, which started to look so bleak in the depths of unemployment in the 1980s and 1990s.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the VAT increases that are in the Budget will make it worse for the poorest in his constituency—not only the unemployed but those on low pay and on limited incomes?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the midst of a growth in unemployment, which has been predicted by the OBR, there is a VAT rise that will affect the poorest families.

In debating the Budget, we have to defend the hope and prospect that there is a different economic way. That is articulated not just by the usual suspects—economists such as David Blanchflower have been mentioned in the debate—but Martin Wolf in the Financial Times, Samuel Brittan and George Joseph Stigler. A number of economists are saying that this is the time for fiscal stimulus, for an FDR-type new deal, for an LBJ-type offer. This is the time for that big society that they dreamed about.

When this country lay in rubble after the second world war, we did not shrink back. The Attlee Government invested. We built the NHS, we built housing, we built schools. That is the example that we should be following. Instead we get this false smoke-and-mirrors game.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for his defence of his hon. Friend, who, let us face it, is having a bad few days. This is not the moment to say that the private sector should step in. What are the chances of one of my constituents wanting to go into the private sector, as many of us have encouraged our constituents to do, given the uncertainty about what will happen to their housing benefit? None. The people who are in social housing will stay there, despite conditions such as those that I have described.

This is the time to walk the walk, I say to the Liberal Democrats. This is the time to demonstrate compassion, care and empathy—to walk alongside those who are poorest in our community. That is test of whether this is an effective Finance Bill, and it does not meet that standard.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

It will not only be private sector tenants who are affected. If a cap is introduced either in London or in my North Durham constituency and that cap is less than the current social market rent, the gap will have to be filled by the tenant. Some will be unable to afford it, and they will either be evicted or have to move out.

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There will be a significant increase in evictions as a result of the housing benefit measures. Many Members will remember London in the 1980s and the early ‘90s. We remember what it was like walking under Waterloo bridge—sometimes it seemed as though whole families were living there, homeless. We remember the stories of “cardboard city”. That is what we remember, and that is what we will see again as a result of this Bill.

To say it is fair if a Bill places a £2 billion levy on the banks but imposes on hard-working people cuts and VAT rises that combined in total come to £24 billion is to treat people like fools. Of course it is not fair. How could it possibly be fair? That is why I repeat that Members who know a lot better and who have relied on the votes of those hard-working people should be ashamed of voting for this Finance Bill. I urge them, in the time left as we continue to debate the Bill, to hear those voices in this place and beyond that say that this moment, as tough as it is for our economy, can be a moment of hope, can be a moment of growth and can be a moment of fiscal stimulus. I urge those Members not to line up alongside the ideological orthodoxy that always sees the opportunity not just to cut a deficit but to cut the state and to cut welfare, but to say once again, as we have in progressive moments in the past: no, we can act differently. I am proud and very lucky to stand here having grown up in a constituency such as mine was in the past, but there are many young men and women who faced years of unemployment and many who, sadly, spent too many years serving at Her Majesty’s pleasure, as a direct consequence of decisions that were made about our economy at that time.