This Friday
we will mark seventy years since the Normandy Landings, where wave upon wave of
allied forces poured onto the beaches of Northern France.
It marked the beginning of the
final chapter of the Second World War which preserved the freedoms we enjoy
today.
So I want to start by honouring the
service of those veterans and the memory of their fallen comrades. feeling I’m sure shared across
the whole House.
And I am sure across the House
today we will also want to remember and pay tribute to the work of our armed
forces over the last decade in Afghanistan.
At the end of this year, British
combat operations will come to an end. We should be incredibly proud of
the service of our armed forces.
They have fought to make
Afghanistan a more stable country, and a country with a democracy and the rule
of law. And a country that cannot be used
as a safe haven to plan acts of terrorism here in Britain.
We grieve for the 453 members of
our Armed Forces who have been lost and our thoughts are with their families
and friends. All of our armed forces have
demonstrated, as our Normandy veterans did all those years ago, that they
represent the best of our country.
At the beginning of each
Parliamentary session, we also remember those members of this House we have
lost in the last year. In January, we lost Paul Goggins. He was one of the kindest, most
honourable people in the House, and someone of the deepest principle.
At a time when people are very
sceptical about politics, Paul Goggins is a reminder of what public servants
and public service can achieve.
Let me turn to the proposer of the
motion who carried off her duties with aplomb and humour. She can only be described as we saw
from her speech, as one of life’s enthusiasts.
Before coming to this House she has
had a varied career as a magician’s assistant when a teenager, and then a job
nearly as dangerous, running the foreign press operation for President George
W. Bush.
She made headlines for her recent
appearance on Splash. With an admirable line in
self-deprecation saying about her performance, “I have the elegance and drive
of a paving slab…” which seems somewhat unfair.
Since she got to the quarter finals
I’m not sure what it says about the other contestants. It certainly takes guts to get in a
swimming costume and dive off the high board.
Can I say to her if she is looking
for a new challenge she should try wrestling a bacon sandwich live on national
television. In any case, it is clear that today
she deserved her place on the podium.
Turning to the seconder of the
motion, she made an eloquent speech. She came to this House with over
twenty years teaching in further education and the Open University behind her.
Since being elected in 2001, she
has campaigned with distinction on children’s issues and has been an assiduous
local MP. She voted against tuition fees, has
described being in the coalition as “terrible” and says the Lib Dem record on
women MPs is “dreadful”.
By current Lib Dem standards, Mr
Speaker, that apparently makes her a staunch loyalist.
But on gender representation she
will have taken real consolation that she can now boast that 100 per cent of
Liberal Democrat MEPs are women.
As she said she will be standing
down at the next election and for her outside experiences, her wisdom and her
all round good humour and kindness, which I saw when I first became an MP, she
will be much missed.
Before I turn to the loyal address,
let me say something about one of the most important decisions for generations,
which will be made in just a few months’ time. The decision about the future of
our United Kingdom.
The history of the UK, from
workers’ rights, to the defeat of Fascism, to the NHS, to the minimum wage, is
the story of a country stronger together.
A country in which representation
from Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland and England has helped us to
advance the cause of social justice. It is a decision for the people of
Scotland but I passionately believe this Kingdom should remain United.
Mr Speaker, the ritual of the
debate on the loyal address has existed for centuries. Today, we do not just debate the
Queen’s Speech, we assert the importance of this House and the battle it has
fought over hundreds of years to exercise power on behalf of the British
people.
But what the recent elections show
is that more than at any time for generations, this House faces a contemporary
battle of its own. A battle for relevance, legitimacy
and standing in the eyes of the public.
The custom of these debates is to
address our opponents across the despatch box in this House. But today on its own that would be
inadequate to the challenge we face.
There is an even bigger opponent to
address in this Queen’s Speech debate: the belief among many members of
the public that this House cannot achieve anything at all. Any party in it.
About 10 per cent of people
entitled to vote, voted for UKIP in the recent elections. But, as significant, over 60 per
cent did not vote at all. And whatever side we sit on, we
will all have heard it on the doorstep: “You’re all the same, you’re in it
for yourself, it doesn’t matter who I vote for.”
Of course, that’s not new, but
there is a depth and a scale of disenchantment which we ignore at our peril. Disenchantment that goes beyond one
party, beyond one government. There is no bigger issue for our
country and our democracy.
So, the test for this legislative
programme, the last before the general election, is to show that it responds. To the scale of the discontent. And the need for answers.
In this election, we heard concerns
about the way the EU works and the need for reform. We heard deep-rooted concerns about
immigration and the need to make changes.
But I believe there is an even
deeper reason for this discontent. Fundamentally, too many people in
our country feel Britain doesn’t work for them and hasn’t done so for a long
time.
In the jobs they do and whether
their hard work is rewarded. In the prospects for their children
and whether they will lead a better life than their parents, including whether
they will be able to afford a home of their own. And in the pressures communities
face.
Above all, whether the work and
effort people put in is reflected in them sharing fairly in the wealth of this
country. The Governor of the Bank of England
gave a remarkable speech last week saying inequality was now one of the biggest
challenges in our country. We should all be judged on how we
respond to this question, right as well as left.
There are measures we support in
this Queen’s Speech including tackling modern slavery, an Ombudsman for our
Armed Forces, and recall. But the big question for this
Queen’s Speech is whether it just offers more of the same or whether it offers
a new direction, so we can genuinely say it works for all and not just a few at
the top.
This task starts with the nature of
work in Britain today. It is a basic belief of the British
people that if you work all the hours God sends you should at least be able to
make ends meet.
All of us say that if you do the
right thing, you should be rewarded. It is a mantra that all sides of
this House repeat. But we should listen to the voices
of all of those people who say that their reality today is that hard work is
not rewarded. And it hasn’t been for some time.
All of us will have had heard this
during the election campaign. Like the person I met in
Nottingham, struggling with agency work, total uncertainty about how many hours
he would get. Every morning at 5am, he would ring
up to find out if there was work for him. More often than not, there was
none. He had a family to bring up.
The fact that this is happening in
21st century Britain today, the fourth richest country in the world, is
something that should shame us all. This is not the Britain he believes
in. It’s not the Britain we believe in. And it shouldn’t be the Britain
this House is prepared to tolerate.
We have seen the number of
zero-hours contracts go well above one million. We need to debate as a country
whether this insecurity is good for individuals, families and the country as a
whole. It is not. And if it isn’t we should be
prepared really to do something about it.
And we need to debate the wider
problem. Five million people in Britain,
that’s one in five of those in work, are now low paid. And this shocking fact: for the first time on record, most
of the people who are in poverty in Britain today are people in work, not
people out of work. So much for hard work paying.
None of our constituents sent us to
this House to build an economy like that. And at a time when we will face
significant fiscal challenges into the future, it is costing the taxpayer
billions of pounds. It is no wonder people in the
country don’t think this House speaks for them.
To show a new direction for the
country and show it is not just more of the same, the Queen’s Speech needs to
demonstrate to all of those people that it can answer their concerns. There is a Bill in this Queen’s
Speech covering employment. But the Bill we need would signal a
new chapter in the battle against low pay and insecurity at work, not just
business as usual.
It would set a clear target for the
minimum wage for each Parliament, so that we raise it closer to average
earnings. If you are working regular hours,
for month after month, you should be entitled to a regular contract not a
zero-hours contract. If dignity in the workplace means
anything it should clearly mean this.
We could make it happen this
Parliament and show the people of this country that we get what is happening,
but this Queen’s Speech does not do that. Britain, like countries all around
the world, faces a huge challenge of creating the decent, middle income jobs
that we used to take for granted.
And many of those jobs will be
created by small businesses. There is a Bill in the Speech on
small business. But we all know that we have a
decades’ long problem in this country of banks not serving the real economy.
Companies desperate to expand, to
invest, to grow can’t get the capital they need. For all of the talk of reforming
the banks, is there anyone who really believes the problem has been cracked,
with lending to small business continuing to fall?
The choice facing this House is to
carry on as we are. Or say that the banks need to
change. Break up the large banks so we
tackle our uncompetitive banking system. And create regional banks that
properly serve small business. But the Queen’s Speech doesn’t do
this.
And a Queen’s Speech that was
setting a new direction would also be tackling another decades’ long problem. That’s happened under governments
of both parties. And would be devolving economic
power away from Whitehall to our great towns and cities.
Lord Heseltine was right in his
report. We do need to give our towns, our
cities, our communities the tools to do that job. Even more importantly when there is
less money around. More powers over skills, economic
development and transport. And the government should be going
much further. But none of that is in this Queen’s
Speech.
So the first thing this Queen’s
Speech needed to have done is to signal a new direction in the jobs we create
in this country and whether hard work pays. It does not rise to this challenge.
We support measures on childcare,
which is part of the cost-of-living crisis, although the scale of that
challenge means we would go further on free places for 3 and 4-year-olds. And we also support the Bill on
pensions although we want to ensure people get proper advice to avoid the
mis-selling scandals of the past.
But the next task for this Queen’s
Speech is to face up to another truth: for the first time since the Second
World War, many parents fear their children will have a worse life than they
do. No wonder people think that
politics doesn’t have the answers when this is the reality people confront. And nowhere is that more important
than on housing.
We all know the importance of that
to provide security for our families. And we know this matters for the
durability of our recovery too. The Bank of England has warned that
the failure to build homes is their biggest worry. And this is a generational
challenge which hasn’t been met for 30 years.
We are currently building half the
homes we need and on current trends the backlog will be 2 million homes by
2020. The question for this House is: are
we going to act to meet the challenge or carry on as before? A new town at Ebbsfleet as this
Queen’s Speech proposes is fine, but it does not do enough to set a new
direction in building homes.
Tackling the fundamental problem of
a market that’s not working, with a small number of large developers not having
an incentive to build at the pace we need. We know there is a problem of
developers getting planning permission, sitting on land, and waiting for it to
accumulate in value. There are land banks with planning
permission for over half a million homes.
We can either accept that or change
it. We could give councils powers to
say to developers, use the land or lose it. And give local councils the right
to grow where they need more land for housing. And this House could commit today
to getting 200,000 homes built a year, the minimum we need. That is after all what in the 1950s
a One Nation Conservative Prime Minister did.
But the Speech does none of these
things.
And a Queen’s Speech rising to the
challenge on housing, would also do something for the nine million people who
rent in the private sector. Over one million families, with two
million children, with no security at all. Children who will start school this
September but their parents will have no idea whether they will still be in their
home in 12 months’ time. And we wonder why people are losing
their faith in politics.
When we published our proposals for
three-year tenancies some people said they were like something out of
Venezuela. If something as modest as this is
ridiculed as too radical, is it any wonder that people who rent in the private
sector think Parliament doesn’t stand up for them? These proposals would not transform
everything overnight, but they would tell 9 million people renting in the
private sector that we get it and something can be done.
And there is another area where
people are fed up being told there is nothing that can be done. Their gas and electricity bills. It is eight months since Labour
called for a freeze on people’s energy bills. Just this week we’ve seen figures
showing the companies have doubled their profit margins.
This is a test of whether this
House will stand up to powerful vested interests and act, or say that nothing
can be done. The companies can afford it. The public need it. The government have ignored it. This Queen’s Speech fails that
test.
The test for this Queen’s Speech is
also whether it responds to the anxieties people feel in their communities. We all know that one of the biggest
concerns at the election was around immigration. I believe immigration overall has
been good for our country. I believe it as the son of
immigrants. And I believe it because of the
contribution people coming here have made to our country.
But we all know that we must
address the genuine problems about the pace of change, pressures on services
and the undercutting of wages. Some people say we should cut
ourselves off from the rest of the world and withdraw from the European Union. They are profoundly wrong. We have always succeeded as a
country when we’ve engaged with the rest of the world. That is when Britain has been at
its best.
Others say that there is nothing
that can or should be done. They are wrong too. We can act on the pace of change by
insisting on longer controls when new countries join the European Union. We need effective borders where we
count people in and out.
And this House could act in this
session of Parliament to tackle the undercutting of wages. Not just increasing fines on the
minimum wage, but proper enforcement and stopping employers crowding ten to
fifteen people into a house to sidestep it. We all know it’s happening. Stopping gangmasters from
exploiting workers from construction to agriculture. We all know it’s happening. Stopping employment agencies from
only advertising overseas or being used to get round the rules on fair pay. We all know it’s happening.
It is no wonder people lose faith
in politics when they know it’s happening and Parliament fails to act. If this House thinks these things
are wrong then we should do something about them. Responding to the concerns we have
heard about work, about family, about community is the start this House needs
to make to restore our reputation in the eyes of the public.
At the beginning of this speech I
said there is a chasm between the needs and wishes of the people of this
country and whether or not this House and politics is capable of responding. We need to rise to that challenge. This Queen’s Speech doesn’t do it. But it can be done.
And that is the choice that the
country will face in less than a year’s time. This is what a different Queen’s
Speech would have looked like:
A Make Work Pay Bill to reward hard
work.
A Banking Bill to support small
businesses.
A Community Bill to devolve power.
An Immigration Bill to stop workers
being undercut.
A Consumers’ Bill to freeze energy
bills.
A Housing Bill to tackle the
housing crisis.
And an NHS Bill to make it easier
to see your GP and stop its privatisation.
To make that happen, we need a different government, a Labour government.
To make that happen, we need a different government, a Labour government.
""They have fought to make Afghanistan a more stable country, and a country with a democracy and the rule of law. And a country that cannot be used as a safe haven to plan acts of terrorism here in Britain.""
ReplyDeleteHeavens, who is this-George Bush?
The neocons really have won.
I just couldn't ever vote for any of these clowns.