Jump to content

M-1: Debate on the Address


Blakesley
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have to acquaint the House that this House has this day attended Her Majesty in the House of Peers, and that Her Majesty was pleased to make a most Gracious Speech from the Throne to both Houses of Parliament, of which I have, for greater accuracy, obtained a copy. I shall direct that the terms of the speech be printed in the Votes and Proceedings. Copies are already available in the Vote Office.

The Gracious Speech was as follows:

Quote

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,

My government will negotiate an exit from the European Union that works for every community in Britain, promotes the country’s welfare, and unites its people.

My government will ensure that that deal will prioritise jobs and living standards by retaining as many benefits of the single market as possible, maintaining labour and environmental standards, providing certainty to European Union nationals living in the United Kingdom and British nationals living in the European Union, and maintaining a close and productive relationship with the European Union.

My government will publish a white paper shortly setting out its negotiating priorities and next steps.

My government will introduce an EU Exit Rights and Protections Bill that protects workers’ rights, consumer protections, and environmental protections as we exit the European Union.

My government will work with Parliament, social partners, and civic society to bring people together to discuss the opportunities and trade-offs associated with Brexit, and as part of that we will grant Parliament a truly meaningful vote on any deal.

My government will end austerity.

My government will end zero-hours contracts.

My Government will measure its economic success not by the number of billionaires, but by the ability of our people to live richer lives.

My Government will guarantee workers earn a living wage by raise the minimum wage to £10 an hour for all workers aged 18 by 2020 and index it to inflation.

My Government will repeal the Trade Union Act and roll out sectoral collective bargaining – because they believe the most effective way to maintain good rights at work is collectively through a union.

My Government will guarantee trade unions a right to access workplaces – so that unions can speak to members and potential members.

My Government will enforce all workers’ rights to trade union representation at work –  so that all workers can be supported when negotiating  with their employer.

My government will reform the welfare state through removing the two child limit, ending the five week wait, and repealing the bedroom tax.

My government will end the public sector pay cap.

My government will address the housing crisis by restoring housing benefits for eighteen to twenty-one year olds, building more council homes, and investigating the benefits of reforming the planning system to a zonal planning scheme.

My government will protect the rights and dignity of those who are unable to own their home by passing tenants rights reform and rent protection and end no fault evictions and require private rented homes to meet the Decent Homes Standard.

My government will create a National Education Service for England to provide cradle-to-grave learning for all that is free at the point of use.

My government will reform the social security system and protect the right of all people to have security and dignity in retirement.

My government will invest in the National Health Service and lay the foundations for a National Care Service.

My government will establish an Independent Commission on the Constitution to advise reforms to British government and democracy that promotes equity, inclusion, and transparency.

My government will introduce a Constitutional Reform Bill to legalize votes for sixteen-year-olds, reform of the House of Lords, and further expand the rights of British citizens.

My government will reform the Assembly of Wales by implementing the remaining proposals from the Commission on Devolution in Wales.

My government will reverse spending cuts towards Nations and local governments and services.

My government will invest in broadband, housing, and transport for those outside of large towns and cities.

My government will ensure that everyone is able to live in a community that is safe and welcoming.

My government will ensure that our police force is strong and active by recruiting 10,000 more officers and creating strategies that eliminate institutional biases against BAME communities.

My government will recruit new border guards and firefighters to ensure that they can respond to emergencies quicker.

My government will reform the justice system, including implementing the recommendations of the Bach Commission.

My government will increase the statutory minimum of foreign aid to 1% of national income to invest in achieving the UN’s sustainable development goals and for helping displaced people around the world. 

My government will assist Rohingya Muslims fleeing violence in Myanmar. 

My government will introduce the right of return for displaced Chagos islanders.

My ministers will continue to invest in our armed forces, meeting the NATO commitment to spend at least 2% of national income on defence.

My government will work to find sustainable political solutions to conflicts across the Middle East. It will work to tackle the threat of terrorism at source by continuing the United Kingdom’s leading role in international military action to destroy Daesh in Iraq and Syria. It will also lead efforts to reform the international system to improve the United Kingdom’s ability to help displaced people, alleviate poverty and end modern slavery.

My Government will continue to support international action against climate change, including the implementation of the Paris Agreement.

My government will set a binding net-zero target for 2040 and work with global partners to put the world on a path to net-zero.

My government will commission blueprints for this sustainable future. 

My government will introduce an Environmental Protection Act that advances environmental quality standards, safeguards the blue belt, and keeps our air clean.

My government will place a ban on fracking.

My government will offer enhanced financial support to green renewable start-ups.

My government will increase infrastructure investment and ensure that funding is equitably distributed around the United Kingdom, and extend further powers to local authorities to re-regulate bus services.

My government will create a national rail infrastructure strategy that builds on the promise of High Speed 2 services. Legislation will be introduced to bring rail back into public ownership.

My government will host the Commonwealth Summit in April of next year to cement its relevance to this, and future generations.

Members of the House of Commons:

Estimates for the public services will be laid before you.

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons:

Other measures will be laid before you.

I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon your counsels.
 

Before I call the mover and seconder, I want to announce the proposed schedule of debate during the remaining days on the Loyal Address, which are: the response of the Leader of the Opposition, the response of the Prime Minister, and then a general debate to last no more than three days.

I shall first call Sue Hayman to move and then Imran Hussain to second the Address.

Sue Hayman, MP for Workington: 

I beg to move,

That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:

Most Gracious Sovereign,

We, your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament....

Imran Hussain, MP for Bradford East: Seconds the address and gives a fun speech.

Mr Speaker: I now call the Leader of the Opposition, Sir Dylan Macmillan! (24 hours).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr Speaker I would like to begin my remarks on this day in which we look forward to a new Parliament by looking back. Mr Speaker, as we look back on the events of the last two months one cannot help but feel a great sense of pain for our nation, not political pain (although there was plenty of it for us on this side of the House) but emotional pain born of empathy for the families of the dead. 22 people went to Manchester for a pop concert and never came home, 116 made it home with life changing injuries, and everyone else went home with mental scars that nobody should be forced to bear. Then the following month in London, in the safety of their own homes, 72 people died in the Grenfell Tower disaster with many more injured both physically and mentally. Finally Mr Speaker in our nation’s capital  eight people were killed by a lone knifeman who was himself killed by our excellent police force. Mr Speaker I would like to pay tribute to the first and emergency responders, to their dedication, heroism, and bravery. I would also like to pay tribute to the families of the dead and say that no matter what happens we in this House, on all sides, will fight to see justice done while we remember those who cannot be here with us today.

Mr Speaker I would like to end my closing remarks by thanking Her Majesty for the delivery of her speech. I do not like most of what I heard but it is no mark against Her, she delivered the speech with all the grace and dignity that we have come to rely on from our sovereign who has so readily led us as a nation. While politics changes, Prime Ministers come and go, indeed governments rise and fall, she is there always. Immutable, indefatigable, our nation owes Her Majesty a debt we will never be able to repay and I thank her once again for delivering on her constitutional duty.

Mr Speaker, this is a speech full of having your cake and eating it promises. There is no plan, there is no confrontation of the hard choices, there is only an endless parade of contradictions, platitudes, and in some cases outright codswallop. On the big issues of the day the Government could have taken a stand and a stance, it may not be one that I agree with but what we have been confronted with Mr Speaker is neither. On Brexit we have heard of many ideals but no delivery, on the economy we have heard a Christmas list of desires but no way to pay for it. Every step of the way the Government have ducked the big decisions in favour of the easy platitudes.

On the single biggest issue of the day the single biggest problem with this Government becomes so painfully obvious.The Government wants to retain as many benefits of the Single Market as possible apparently. Mr Speaker it is the Single Market which enforces freedom of movement, robbing the British people of the right to govern our own borders. The Prime Minister tweeted personally that freedom of movement would end, despite the protestations of the Remainers he has running his Brexit operation no doubt, and now he wants us to keep us in some bits of the Single Market? Mr Speaker I am no fan of the European Union as a political organisation but everyone in this chamber knows that you cannot pick and choose between the four freedoms, if you want some of the Single Market you have to take all of the Single Market, uncontrolled borders and all. Mr Speaker we are seeing first hand, and so early in the speech, that the Government is unable to take these tough choices and is unable to even be honest to the British people about their lack of credibility here.

But Mr Speaker it is on the economy that we truly see the incompetence, inadequacy, and incoherence of this Government. Before we reach the tens of billions in borrowing every year let’s jump into the issue of employment. The National Living Wage is one of the great successes of the last Conservative Government, raising wages so we can get people off of welfare and into higher pay, so we can stop subsidising low pay. I voted for the Living Wage, I support the Living Wage. What I do not support is this Government’s incompetence, sheer and willful incompetence, in using low pay to make a political point. Mr Speaker a £10 Minimum Wage by 2020 sounds very nice but when you see the kicker you realise it is all just a big scam, a sham of a proposal to its very core. Mr Speaker as many in this House know we have a body for raising the National Minimum Wage, it’s the Low Pay Commission. Under the LPC the Minimum Wage has vastly outstripped inflation. This Government wants to abolish the Low Pay Commission and simply peg wages to inflation to that very same metric. Mr Speaker if I might indulge the House I would like to demonstrate just how damaging that measure is. Since the Minimum Wage was introduced inflation has increased prices by about 35%, in that time minimum wage growth has doubled inflation. People on low pay in this country are not only better off thanks to the abandoning of CPI they are about £2/hr better off than they would be if Labour had stuck to its plans outlined in this Queen’s Speech. Mr Speaker this plan is scandalous, condemning those on low pay when we should be lifting them up and I call on the Prime Minister to publicly drop the scheme.

But Mr Speaker it is when we turn to the national finances that we see the seriousness of Labour’s break from reality. Mr Speaker, between this Queen’s Speech and the Labour Manifesto commitments on Health (most of which do not appear in the Queen’s Speech) the Government have committed us to over £100bn in extra spending per year. £100bn. Mr Speaker I’m going to pre-empt the Prime Minister, he’ll say that the Government will raise taxes on the highest earners. Mr Speaker, if you raised the highest rate of Income Tax in this country to 100%, confiscated every pound made by every man and woman earning more than £150,000, you wouldn’t even cover a quarter of this unfunded spending. So Prime Minister, cut the rubbish, get serious, tell the truth. How will this Government pay for this Speech? Which tax will you raise on the working people of this country? How much will you squeeze out of low earners after you’ve taken away their pay rise? Mr Speaker the Prime Minister spoke about for the many not the few, this is a Government that is for neither the many nor the few. It takes from low earners, spends without any idea of a plan, and treats their democratically expressed will as a burden. And Mr Speaker, here’s the kicker, we couldn’t find numbers for all of Labour’s projects, so we didn’t include them. There is an unknown amount of extra taxes coming down the tracks at the British people and this Government doesn’t have the faintest idea what it’s doing to boot.

Mr Speaker these numbers don’t include the Green New Deal which this Government is committing us to, nor the binding net-zero target. There is no number for this plan Mr Speaker because we do not know, estimates put the cost at £1tn overall and the Government wants to nearly half our delivery time.Mr Speaker I am painfully aware that this country needs to go green, I am painfully reminded of the time that the Liberal Democrats in the Coalition joined forces with Labour to block new nuclear power plants which would have cleaned carbon out of our energy systems far more quickly than the current pace. But in looking to the future I have to ask the Prime Minister what he will do to our nation’s grandmothers when the Green New Deal collides head-on with the cost of living? When pensioners have to replace her perfectly functioning gas boiler with an unproven ground source heat pump, at a needless expense of £10,000 minimum, what will he say to those pensioners? Chin up? Cough up? Or will the taxpayer be adding to our ever growing fiscal burden because the Prime Minister doesn’t have the faintest idea of what he is doing?

Finally Mr Speaker I must address the issue of rail because the Government seem convinced that they need to make an issue out of it again. Mr Speaker the Government demands that we must nationalise railways, but I must remind him that there is no need. Passenger satisfaction is up since we privatised rail, customer dissatisfaction is down since we privatised rail. Fare price increases are nearly half what they were under British Rail, trains are more punctual than they were, and the amount of investment has increased by 800%. Mr Speaker there is no need for nationalisation. British Rail was worse for satisfaction, had higher fare jumps, was less punctual, and invested less. Why is the Government so keen to deliver a worse service, with less investment, and more unhappy customers? I’ll tell you why Mr Speaker because yet again we have a Government that doesn’t know its arse from its elbow, doesn’t know what to do, and is simply playing to a few tired cliches.

Mr Speaker I am reminded of the words that the Prime Minister spoke on the steps of Downing Street. Just before he quoted Communist revolutionaries in front of one of the most important buildings in London he said he has had a distinct feeling that he should not be here. Mr Speaker I could not have put it better myself. This is a clueless government trying desperately to have its cake and eat it. Whether it’s Brexit with the Government trying to have all the Single Market goodies without taking the open borders, or the scourge of low pay with the Government actively abolishing your pay rise, or the £100bn in borrowing, or the Green New Deal destroying boilers, or making the railways deliberately worse this Government doesn’t know where it stands or where it is going. This Throne Speech is a disaster for Britain, undermining our economy, undermining those on low pay, and undermining our negotiations on Brexit. If this is the best the Prime Minister can do then he really might make a better Communist insurgent than he does a Prime Minister. The public didn’t know what to make of him before today, we have our answer now.

Arnold J. Appleby

MP for North Bedfordshire (1979-Present)
Shadow Foreign Secretary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Speaker,

I wish to begin my remarks today by thanking Her Majesty for the delivery of this most Gracious Speech. She has delivered many over the sixty-five years of her glorious reign here, and, in my humble opinion, I think it is the best one yet. I thank and congratulate my friends, the Honourable members for Workington and Bradford East, for moving and seconding the Humble Address, and can attest to this House personally how beloved they are, both in their constituencies and in the seats on this side of the House.

It is a privilege, Mr. Speaker, to be here on this side of the House. The last year has reminded us that life is a fleeting dream. The loss of our dear friend and colleague, Jo Cox, last summer, the Westminster Bridge attack this March, and now the fire at Grenfell Tower. On behalf of those on the Government benches, I associate myself with the Right Honourable Gentleman’s remarks and assure all those who have suffered of our prayers, our condolences, and, most importantly, our commitment to make sure that never happens again.

I also welcome the Right Honourable Gentleman across the despatch boxes to his new role and look forward to our sparring on Wednesday. The Right Honourable Gentleman has a mostly distinguished record in this House - chairing the Justice Select Committee, a ministerial position in the Home Office, and service as Lord Chancellor, where his performance was slightly under par, so much so, that a minister of state in that department quit due to the Rt Hon Gentleman’s appointment.

Mr. Speaker, The Right Honourable Gentleman has joined the tradition of many of his Conservative predecessors in throwing around large sums of numbers to redbait without actually adding in context. So let me attempt to do it for him. This most recent General Election was called by the former Prime Minister, the Right Honourable member for Maidenhead, because she thought she could increase her majority and ensure that she’d have a majority of her party backing any negotiations she did with the European Union. Fast-forward a few months and here we are. The people wanted a government that would invest in public services after years of austerity spending and ensure that it is paid for in appropriate ways. They’re getting one. The people wanted a government with a clear plan for Brexit, not one that amounted to “whatever I have to do to keep my party united.” They’re getting one.

The Leader of the Opposition seems to not understand this, perhaps hurt by the fact that he spent the last year in a Government which changed plans at every poll release. He says that we will want to maintain freedom of movement? We are committed to ensuring that we have more control over our laws and borders. But we can ensure here that the benefits that the Single Market brought remain - by ensuring support and status for EU nationals living here, maintaining labour and environmental standards, and by remaining close colleagues with the European Union. This is not an “everything must go” sale, and I wish the gentleman understood that. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle may protest at maintaining those standards, but let’s be real about it - maintaining those standards helps workers and the environment, not big bosses who donate to the Conservative Party. Alas, it seems unlikely that they will fully understand.

We come back to this problem regarding the minimum wage. He seems to think that the plank in this speech on that topic means we will be getting rid of the Low Pay Commission, one of Labour’s great accomplishments from the last two decades. At no point, Mr. Speaker, have we ever committed to doing such a thing. The former Chancellor’s so-called “National Living Wage” is ageist, as it only affects workers over the age of twenty-five. Instead, every adult worker gets to benefit, the real National Living Wage is higher, it must be increased by inflation at minimum, and the Low Pay Commission will be asked to actually take into account living conditions, not just median earnings. This government believes that everyone deserves to be able to live off of a full-time salary, whether they’re working in a corner office in the City or they’re working in the kitchen of the local chippy. 

The Leader of the Opposition and his media staffers have had a lot of fun throwing around £100bn in extra spending per year. It’s a nice, fun, round number. I get it. But let’s look at the facts, Mr. Speaker. This year, under my friend, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Labour became the first party in British politics to fully cost and explain their calculations for how this government will be funded. It is not surprising that he has forgotten this - he has forgotten a lot of seemingly important things recently, so I did happen to bring a copy of Funding Britain’s Future here with me today just for him. In case the Right Honourable Gentleman wants to learn about how we will yield over five billion pounds every year from extending the stamp duty reserve tax on the wealthiest in our society, he can find it there, just as easily as he could find out how our reforms on corporation tax will bring in almost twenty billion pounds a year, or our new tax avoidance programme that will bring in over six billion pounds a year -  I hope he enjoys the scintillating reading. (Slides paper across despatch boxes.)

And Mr. Speaker, we could talk all day about what the Rt Hon Leader of the Opposition thinks is happening here and I tell him that it’s not accurate. Let’s turn, Mr. Speaker, to what is actually happening. We have just ended the seven years of Conservative government in this country and it can be summed up in three words - dither, delay, and deny. They dithered in coming up with policy on all sorts of issues, not just Brexit. They delayed in pursuing real solutions to issues like building regulations and fire safety. And they denied people their right to grow, live, and be who they want to be here in this United Kingdom.

Income inequality, as measured by the Gini coefficient, rose by a percentage point towards perfect inequality. For comparison, Finland is eight points below us. Since the start of the Coalition Government, the number of people receiving emergency food from Trussell Trust food banks has risen by over a million people! I mean, what kind of policies do you have to implement to the point where over a million more people are hungry and need food! And that doesn’t even include the six hundred and fifty-one food banks operated by other organisations! I mean, what the heck do you have to do to make this crisis that bad? The number of people on an NHS waiting list in England is over four million, the most it has been since Labour’s reforms during the recession - Conservative mismanagement increased the number of people on a waiting list by around two million. People can’t eat, they can’t get healthcare, there aren’t enough teachers, I mean, the Right Honourable Gentleman keeps asking why this country voted Labour into power - just look at your record! If the tale of the Tory government is not willful ignorance or active malice, it’s gotta be a third option, and I’m all out of ideas! 

The Labour movement stands up for the people hurt hardest by Tory cuts. One of Labour’s union affiliates, GMB, is the direct descendant of the Gas Workers and General Labourers Union, founded by Will Thorne in 1889 when he and his colleagues in Beckton achieved an eight-hour work day. Today the Labour movement is not just about the eight-hour day - it’s about an equitable work week, about fair sick pay and annual leave, good pay, and equality under the law. I am always struck by one of the slogans of the eight-hour day movement - “eight hours for work, eight hours for rest, eight hours for what we will.” The eight-hour day movement was and remains about freedom to do what you wanted - to study at the Open University alongside working a full-time job, to visit your healthcare provider when you need to, to receive the appropriate benefits, to live with the freedoms, the rights, that every person in this country, every person in this world is given because of their humanity. This, Mr. Speaker, is a Government who wants to do right by those people. We must reverse the cuts that we have suffered this last seven years. I know the Right Honourable Gentleman agrees with me, as he began recruiting more prison officers to begin reversing cuts as Lord Chancellor. So let’s reverse those cuts and recruit 10,000 more police officers, equivalent to at least one new officer for every neighbourhood in the country; and recruit 3,000 new firefighters and 3,000 new prison officers. While the Opposition reenacts the Red Scare, that is what this Government will be doing - fixing the issues our predecessors have caused.

Take education, Mr. Speaker. Since 2010, the percentage of GCSE entries that received a C dropped. The pupil to teacher ratio in nursery schools has skyrocketed from 17.2 in 2010 to 22.2 now. That is unacceptable and that is the direct result of the Conservative Governments cutting spending on education by almost twenty billion pounds over seven years. We’re going to invest in education and create a National Education Service that ensures that everyone in England has cradle-to-grave learning that is free at the point of use for all. That is the promise of a Labour government - not electioneering from the get-go about a supposed £100bn of extra spending, not making life harder for average people, but getting the job done for the people of this nation.

We ran in this election on the slogan of “For the Many, Not the Few.” This speech was a reflection of that slogan and the values behind it. For the Many, we will reverse the Conservative education cuts. For the Many, we will get a Brexit deal done that protects our workers and economy. For the Many, we will transform our economy, invest in British workers, and ensure that everyone has what they need to live a good life here. And that, Mr. Speaker, is something we should all be able to support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr Speaker,

May I pay tribute to Her Majesty The Queen for her delivery of the Throne Speech. For 65 years She has served this nation and a Commonwealth of over 2 billion people around the world; She is our longest-reigning monarch, and it is poignant to remember that all political passions - and careers - are fleeting compared to the continuity of service, devotion to duty and commitment to Her people that Her Majesty embodies.

The Throne Speech makes history today not just because of the remarkable woman who, without fear of favour, was called upon once again to read Her government’s programme. It makes history because it is the most radically left-wing agenda for government this country has seen in forty years. It is the agenda of a Labour Party led by a man who quoted communist revolutionaries on the steps of Downing Street; whose Chancellor is renowned as one of the biggest marxists in Britain. It is an agenda which makes bold promises and bold claims. But if what we have seen today marks the start of a new chapter in British politics, we must surely all be alarmed by the prose that is to be written. Because this is not an agenda for economic stability and security. It is not an agenda for sustainable social change. It is not an agenda to move Britain forwards: rather, it is an agenda for chaos. Chaos and instability in our economy. Chaos and uncertainty amongst our workforce. Chaos and concern in the financial markets. Chaos and decline in our international standing. Chaos in every area of government policy.

The Prime Minister has stood at the despatch box and defended his agenda for chaos by quoting statistics and asserting the end of austerity. But he has today unveiled £100 billion worth of unfunded spending commitments, which together would require either taxes or borrowing to rise to their highest level since the war. Amongst those unfunded spending pledges, a National Education Service which puts all the emphasis on structures over standards, likely to cost £17 billion a year, and with no clear statement of what benefit this would actually deliver for children. A commitment to net zero by 2040 which will require pensioners to rip out their fully functional boilers and replace them with heat pumps, and which will cost the taxpayer a trillion pounds in the long term. The government proposes to institute a National Care Service at a cost of £30.5 billion, with working-class taxpayers footing the bill so that millionaire pensioners like Lord Sugar can receive free catered social care. The government proposes to spend £11.3 billion on local authority funding, but makes no statement about how that money is to be raised or spent. And for public sector workers, who already earn 13% more than their private sector equivalents per hour on average, the government proposes an uncosted £6 billion pay hike.

The total cost of the government’s borrowing bonanza of programmes announced in the Throne Speech is over £100 billion, this year and every year. To fund this, the government would need to either double income tax, costing the average worker thousands of pounds, or raise the annual budget deficit to nearly 10% of GDP. This would be the largest peacetime deficit in Britain’s history.

It seems that Labour never learns: you cannot tax and borrow your way into prosperity. You need to pay for what you want to spend. Today’s speech, I say to the House, is a recipe for a repeat performance of 2008: but a thousand times worse. And this would be a crisis all of the government’s own making. 

But the agenda for chaos doesn’t stop at excessive, unfunded spending on dubious priorities. The government has today announced plans to repeal the Trade Union Act and roll out sectoral collective bargaining: the biggest explosion in trade union power since the era of the winter of discontent, the three-day week, the bodies going unburied and the rubbish piling up in the streets. It’s no wonder that the government would commit to such a policy. Because the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the man now in charge of this country’s economy, was hand-picked for his Parliamentary seat by Len McLuskey himself - a marxist, radical trade union leader dedicated to the politics of a bygone age, who last year described claims of anti-semitism within the Labour Party as a smear and who was investigated by the police in 2013 amidst claims that his union had rigged the selection in Falkirk West.

And the return of overwhelming trade union power, and the imposition of sectoral collective bargaining, quite apart from ballooning the cost of administration in the public sector, would bring Britain back to its knees. Pay disputes, strikes, industrial action, work to rule: an uncompetitive economy in which international businesses will not want to invest.

Let me share with the House a vision for Britain in 2022 under this Labour government. By 2022, the fund its £100 billion spending bonanza, this government will either have doubled income tax or raised the budget deficit to its highest ever peacetime level as a share of GDP. The UK’s creditworthiness will have nosedived. Borrowing will have become more expensive, and the taxpayer will be footing the bill for higher debt interest payments. The pound will have slumped to dramatically low levels as a result of collapsing confidence, necessitating a rise in interest rates which will collapse economic growth. Resurgent trade unions led by the likes of the Chancellor’s mentor Len McCluskey will be pushing public services into near constant pay disputes and strikes, forcing inflation higher as the public sector pay bill balloons out of control. Families will be out of pocket by thousands as they are forced to abide by the government’s radical net zero policies. Investment will have collapsed. The government will be spending tens of billions of pounds every year in funding free social care for millionaires and on an education reform agenda which will do nothing to improve standards. A confused, worst-of-both-world Brexits will have been implemented, with the government simultaneously promising to wrench Britain out of the single market but retain all of its rules. The minimum wage will have risen in line only with inflation, leaving workers less well off than they were five years beforehand. And flexibility in the workplace will have been curtailed.

If this sounds dramatic, it’s because it is. It’s also the truth. It is a dramatic realisation of a dramatically bad policy agenda for Britain. What Labour’s agenda for chaos means is higher taxes, higher borrowing, higher prices and lower wages. It means unfunded spending commitments which will bankrupt Britain, and misguided reform initiatives which will cost the taxpayer dearly. It means the most radically left-wing government anywhere in Europe, and in Britain for over forty years.

As Labour winds back the clock to an era of economic regression, social uncertainty and industrial discontent, people in this country will grow to see more and more that there is a true alternative in the Conservative Party, and in my right honourable friend the member for Bedfordshire North East as a new Prime Minister. That alternative is fiscal responsibility, fairer and lower taxes, sustainable investment in infrastructure and public services and a long-term plan for prosperity. The Conservative agenda is an opportunity agenda which stands in stark contrast to Labour’s agenda for chaos. 

The Prime Minister stands at the head of the most radical government this country has seen in recent memory. His plan is one that will spell disaster for British businesses and British workers. He dresses up his agenda for chaos with the language of “the many, not the few.” In so doing, he is already drawing a distinction in our society between the worthy and the unworthy: those who subscribe to his radical socialist worldview, and those who do not. His is the politics of envy, ours the politics of opportunity. His is the economics of uncertainty, ours the economics of prosperity. His is the social agenda of regression, ours the social agenda of progress. His plan is as ill-thought-out and flimsy as his speech to the nation when first appointed Prime Minister; our plan, our alternative, is a programme for a better tomorrow. 

This Throne Speech means misery for the many and satisfaction only for the Prime Minister’s few supporters. I urge the government now to change course, abandon ship and let the adults take charge of the wheel. For Britain under this plan will become a sinking ship, and it will once again be Britain’s hardworking taxpayers who are forced to swim to shore.

D024E7D1-C0DA-48FE-A038-2169CB69381C.thumb.jpeg.5b344316bff6a81d11903920a5caf322.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr Speaker

I would like to join others in thanking Her Majesty for delivering her speech with her usual poise and grace.

I would also like to take this opportunity on the first sitting of our new Parliament to recognise the tragic loss of life in the Kensington Olympia train derailment. Diacon will never be the same again.

Mr Speaker,

I will come to Brexit shortly, I promise, for the sake of my very agitated colleagues on the other side of the House. But I am sure that the House will allow me a few brief words on the broader topics we are discussing today.

It has been eight long years since the Speech from the Throne contained genuine progressive policies. The Shadow Chancellor is right on one thing in his speech if he is right about nothing else, that those of us that have spent the last seven years fighting austerity will be satisfied. Because, Mr Speaker, their politics: the politics of fear, of division, or austerity, are gone. They have been rejected by the people of this country. And this programme for government consigns them to history.

The Shadow Chancellor tells us that we should let the adults to take the wheel. Putting aside the petulance of a party that seems unable to accept that it didn’t win the election, Mr Speaker, I’d like to know: where were the adults, Mr Speaker, when a million families had to appeal to foodbanks to not go hungry. Where were the adults, Mr Speaker, when our local constituents couldn’t see a GP. Where were the adults, Mr Speaker, when ordinary families struggled and they handed out tax cuts to their rich mates?

The task falls to us, Mr Speaker, to chart a new course for our country. A course that delivers for the many, not the few.

And that approach, Mr Speaker, extends to Brexit too.

The party opposite had nearly a year - nearly a year - to come up with a plan for Brexit that could unite our country. The fact is, they failed to even unite their party. The former Prime Minister put party unity first: eschewing the advice of experts, the unity of the country, the health of our economy and society. 

We will put our country, our economy, our communities first.

Brexit, Mr Speaker, will happen. It is the will of the people, expressed clearly in a referendum less than a year ago. There will be no turning back on that pledge - however much the Liberal Democrats might demand it. But unlike the party opposite, we will not pursue an austerity Brexit that risks our economy, our stability, and our unity with a reckless, brinkmanlike attitude. That threatens to leave our economy and our businesses without a deal that ensures trade can continue and protect the jobs it creates. 

The Shadow Chancellor talks about extremists. 

Well I can point to them right there on that side of the House.

On one end they want to put up as many barriers as they can with Europe and build - depending on who you talk to - either some kind of Thatcherite paradise where we have to subject ourselves to trade deals demanding chlorinated chicken or undermined labour standards; or perhaps some kind of autarkic future where Britain retreats to some kind of not so splendid isolation: poorer, both economically and socially.

And on the other side of the opposition benches, we have the Liberal Democrats, so out of touch that they can’t accept the democratic will of the people last year. You don’t get to rerun an election result you don’t like. That is a simple fact of any democracy. The campaign was clear, the implications of the vote well canvassed. The people voted to leave. And we will leave.

The Brexit absolutism on that side of the House - so divorced from the country they want to govern - would hurtle us either to a no deal catastrophe or to us here ignoring the will of the people. Neither is acceptable. Neither accepts the great responsibility of uniting our country, reaching across uncomfortable boundaries, putting in the hard work. Both retreat into cozy comfort zones and leaves our country poorer.

That is why, Mr Speaker, I am pleased that Her Majesty’s speech was clear: we will deliver Brexit, but we will focus on delivering a deal that can unite our country. A deal that maintains our close ties to our friends in Europe while taking more control of our laws, borders, and money. A deal that prioritises jobs and living standards. A deal that maintains high labour and environmental standards, rather than making Britain the vanguard of a race to the bottom. A deal that listens to the hopes, concerns, and expertise of social partners, communities, and Parliamentarians.

Britain, Mr Speaker, can and will be a prosperous, open, and fair country whatever future relationship we have with the EU. But a good deal means that we can unleash the opportunities of business and industry - growing our economy, protecting jobs, protecting living standards. A good deal means a country that can take its confident place in the world. A good deal means that our manufacturers in Birmingham and the workers they employ can have the same economic opportunities as our bankers in Canary Wharf.

That, Mr Speaker, is the deal that we will endeavour to negotiate, and the future that we will unite our country behind.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr Speaker, I'd like to begin my remarks by thanking Her Majesty for the delivery of her speech. Her role in our parliamentary democracy is always undertaken with the utmost grace, and today was no exception.

Mr Speaker, I have sat through countless speeches from the throne, and I can safely say that this is the most transformative one yet. This Government will not simply tinker around the edges of the problems faced by our nation, but one that faces those problems head-on and proposes radical solutions to solve them. We are no longer treating the symptoms of British decline, but finally tackling the root causes. In education, healthcare, and in the workplace, this Government has demonstrated its willingness and its capability to change this country for the better and for good. 

There has, understandably, been much focus on Brexit and this Government's approach, but I'm sure that my honourable friends and colleagues on both sides of this House will have plenty to say on this issue and so, if permitted, I'd like to focus on the other parts of this speech. Let's start with just five words from the start of the speech: "My Government will end austerity." Finally, after nearly a decade of Tory cuts, we're seeing a government that recognises the damage that austerity has on communities across our country. 

Since 2010, we have seen millions slip into poverty, and those that were already in poverty have become only more vulnerable. Economic stagnation, the rising cost of living, cuts to social security and public services, falling incomes, and rising unemployment have combined to create a deeply damaging situation in which millions are struggling to make ends meet. 

This was never an inevitability, Mr Speaker. This was a choice. This was a choice made by every Conservative Member of Parliament since 2010 to embolden the rich and to squeeze the poor. This was a choice to cut taxes for the top and cut benefits for the bottom. This was a choice to replace thriving high streets with the words 'CLOSING DOWN SALE' painted in metre-high letters across empty shop windows. 

"My Government will end austerity," Mr Speaker, is not just a sentence, but a catharsis. It's the phrase that working men and women across this country have been desperate to hear every single day for the last seven years. It's the phrase that will run like a stick of rock through the very centre of this Government, and it's one that I'm proud to associate myself with. 

The party opposite will spend this debate crowing about the deficit and national debt, but their memories, Mr Speaker, seem to be very short indeed. I vividly remember the election campaign of 2010 and the Tory promise of eliminating the deficit by 2015. They were told that it was impossible. They were told that it would tank the economy, stifle growth, and force swathes of the population into poverty, but not to be deterred by pesky facts and figures they ploughed ahead. 

By 2012, of course, they realised that the recovering economy that they'd inherited had been hobbled by their reckless spending cuts. Growth was choked off, the national debt continued to climb, and our economic standing in Europe and around the world was irreparably damaged. And for what, Mr Speaker? What do we have to show for it? Our NHS has been kneecapped, our education system is in disrepair, and food banks are popping up all over the country. The Tories slashed and burned, slashed and burned, slashed and burned. I will take no lectures from the arsonists, Mr Speaker, on how to extinguish this particular fire.

Before coming to this House, Mr Speaker, I was a teacher in central London. It is a truly perverse society that targets its youngest with cuts to services, and yet the party opposite saw no issue with cutting state spending per child by £1,300 during their time in office. 940 youth centres closed. 800 libraries closed. A lost decade. That is why, Mr Speaker, I find the carping from the party opposite to be particularly guiling on a day like today. Indeed, unless every single speech coming from the party opposite doesn't begin with a frank and forthright apology for the pain and misery that they have inflicted upon communities across this country over the past seven years then it's clear that me that there is no contrition, no guilt, and no reason for them to be anywhere near government again.

At long last, Mr Speaker, we have a Government that cares about the suffering that people across Britain have faced over the last seven years. Ending austerity means a National Education Service. Ending austerity means lifting the public sector pay cap. Ending austerity means abolishing the bedroom tax. Ending austerity means building council houses. Ending austerity means reversing spending cuts in the nations and regions. Ending austerity means a living wage of £10 an hour. 

Every single measure in this speech will ring out through households across the country. Let the message ring out, Mr Speaker, across every household in this country: austerity is over. Every household that has been forced into foodbank use. Every household that has seen cuts to its benefits. Every household that has been forced into choosing between heating and eating. Austerity is over, and your future is safe in the hands of this Government.

Dorothy Dean, Labour MP for Islington South & Finsbury (1987-present)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Speaker,

I wish to echo the sentiments of my Right Honourable friend The Leader of the Opposition and add my own voice to the growing chorus of those calling out this legislative program for the shambles it is. Perhaps the most remarkable portion of this program is its complete failure to address pressing issues related to policing, immigration and justice. This was an opportunity for the government to rise above the partisan rancor and put forward a truly unifying agenda – it failed. There are empty promises and hollow commitments, but on the issues that matter to Britons most we hear nothing but regurgitated platitudes and out of touch talking points. Unfortunately for Britons, when this agenda fails, they will be left paying the price.

A few short months ago during the height of the general election, Britain was rocked by terrorism. In a horrific knife and vehicle attack, a radicalized individual caused the death of four pedestrians and a police officer. This individual managed to bring horror not only to the streets of London, but also managed to spread that horrific violence to the grounds of the Palace of Westminster. This attack sent chills through this country and shocked Britons to their core. I expected, as I am sure my colleagues did as well, that this government would announce robust counter terrorism efforts. Additional resources for police and emergency personnel. A review of the operations and intelligence gathering abilities of the Security Service. Additional efforts to strengthen security for the Palace of Westminster. We expected this government to reassure us and take bold action to protect us. They didn’t. We have seen no commitment by this government to strengthen counter terrorism efforts. No additional security measures to keep Britons safe. No additional security measures to protect the heart of our democracy. No strong, clear and deliberate message to terrorists that they will not succeed here in Britain.

Now what the government did pledge to do was to “tackle the threat of terrorism at source by continuing the United Kingdom’s leading role in international military action to destroy Daesh in Iraq and Syria.” That is a puzzling statement to me in the wake of the most recent terrorist attack on Britain. Certainly, all of us here believe the work to destroy Daesh is important and critical to the future of the Middle East and must go on. Yet it puzzles me because the perpetrator of this most recent terrorist attack was not from Iraq. He was not from Syria or Afghanistan. He was from Kent. He went to school in Tunbridge Wells. As far as we’re aware he never attended a terrorist training camp. He was radicalized at home in Britain and not some distant land. He was convinced to turn against his neighbors and fellow countrymen and spend his final moments spreading as much violence and hatred as he could. If this government is promising to destroy terrorists abroad, they’re missing half the fight. We might fight not only terrorism but the causes of terrorism. We must strengthen our resources at home to intervene before radicalization occurs. We must build bridges with the Islamic community and strengthen our commitment to stamp out radicalism wherever it is. Our security services and police must have additional tools, resources and intelligence to prevent attacks at home and respond to critical incidents at moment's notice. This government has pledged to do nothing to strengthen our counterterrorism efforts at home. Nothing.

This government’s negligence does not stop here Mr. Speaker. Whatever our individual views of Brexit, we must acknowledge the plain truth. Brexit offers us the single greatest opportunity to back control of our borders and immigration policy and Labour is squandering it. We have seen absolutely no commitment to reduce net immigration post-Brexit. We have seen no commitment to prioritize immigration based on skill and economic potential. Britons know that we must get immigration under control, and we must prioritize places for those who can bring a positive cultural and economic impact to Britain. Britons know immigrants must be net contributors to our society and be able to stand on their own two feet economically. Britons know what we must do, Labour hasn’t a clue. All of their efforts related to immigration amount to a hollow commitment to increase the number of border guards – a pledge so flimsy and meaningless they halved the number in their manifesto from their initial promise. The disastrous policies introduced by the prior Labour government which lead to near unfettered immigration with total disregard for the long-term success of those immigrants and failed to consider the greater impact to our economy and society will be continued. There may be new faces on the benches opposite, but they have the same old failed policies.

Mr. Speaker,

I know all members of the House support strategies to eliminate institutional bias against BAME communities. It is absolutely vital that there be a broad consensus on this issue and policies be introduced to eliminate these biases and stamp out discrimination. Yet there must be a comprehensive strategy laid out to achieve this goal. The government has pledged to recruit additional police officers, but there has been no commitment made to achieve robust BAME recruitment targets. No pledges to see BAME officers rise properly through the ranks and be reflected in police and emergency services leadership. The former Home Secretary the Member of Parliament for Maidenhead was spot on when she said police must reflect the communities they serve. Our goal must be safer streets and stronger communities, with the public having faith and confidence in their police and the police having complete confidence that the institutions they serve will also serve them. It is worth pointing out that Labour has a long history of ignoring these issues, starting with the failure of a prior Labour government to make progress on and subsequent shelving of the recommendations of the Macpherson inquiry. Under this piecemeal strategy, Labour yet again fails to deliver.

Mr. Speaker,

It may come as a surprise to some on the benches opposite that I welcome an independent expert review of the justice system and consideration of the impact of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. Indeed, this was yet another example where the government could have forged a broad consensus that rises above party politics. Instead, it has unsurprisingly decided to endorse an all-Labour lead, all Labour focused “commission” put forward by the Fabian Society. More concerning still, this government has pledged to implement the findings of the “report” without knowing what the final recommendations even are – the final report is not due until sometime later this year. This is not responsible governance. It is not building consensus. It is not a comprehensive review by non-partisan experts focused on putting people first, but rather an attempt to impose the views of the Fabian Society and the Labour party without a mandate to do so. It is putting the cart before the horse and playing petty partisan games with our judicial system with little regard for the consequences.

The Speech from the Throne lays out the objectives for the government and sets the tone for the legislative agenda that is to come. We can expect the government to abandon efforts to strengthen counter terrorism efforts at home. We can expect the government to botch a historic opportunity to take back control of our borders and bring common sense reform to our immigration system. We can expect the government to deliver half measures to combat discrimination and bias against BAME communities and ignore comprehensive recruitment and diversity initiatives. We can expect the government to substitute the Fabian Society’s views on criminal justice reform for the advice and experience of independent experts. Through its proposals and objectives, we can expect the government to leave Britain much less safe, much further from achieving meaningful progress for at risk communities and unwilling to introduce common sense proposals on immigration that Britons want. This government will fail and leave Britons responsible for picking up the pieces.  

Ali Khan MP

Member of Parliament for Chelsea and Fulham (2010-)

Shadow Home Secretary (2017-)

Conservative Party

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Speaker,

I would like to begin by joining the tributes made to the victims of the recent Manchester attack, London Bridge attack, and the Grenfell disaster. All of their losses are devastating and painful for their loved ones. I echo the calls made around the House that we as Members must and will join together to ensure that justice is done for those who have been so heartbreakingly taken from us.

Furthermore, I would also like to join the tributes to Her Majesty the Queen for her most gracious delivery of the Throne Speech. As ever, she embodies the spirit of duty and service to our nation. Indeed, we are reminded each time that Her Majesty makes this address, of her unfailing, unswerving dedication to her role as monarch over so many years.

Mr. Speaker,

On the content of the Throne Speech, I must join with the remarks of my colleagues, the Leader of the Opposition, the Shadow Chancellor and the Shadow Home Secretary, in their analysis of the address. Simply put, the Government have made clear that their programme for office is fraught with uncertainty, negligence and ineffectiveness.

I will not drag out this debate by repeating the clear and effective criticisms of the government’s economic programme by the Leader of the Opposition and Shadow Chancellor, nor will I cover the very salient points made by the Shadow Home Secretary on terrorism, justice and immigration. Instead, I shall focus upon trade, aid, defence, and of course Brexit, during my remarks today.

Mr. Speaker,

When the Prime Minister made his debut speech to the nation outside Downing Street, he failed to give any clarity about his plans for office. Now that the Throne Speech gives more detail than before, I must say that the issue of clarity remains unfortunately prevalent. Furthermore, the Throne Speech makes clear that the Government is either already changing policy on the hoof, or is just as negligent and ineffectual in the realm of foreign affairs as it is in other significant areas of policy.

Firstly, I am disappointed to find that the Throne Speech mentions trade unions more than trade deals. Sadly, this is one’s lot when ruled by a hard left government. It is clear from the referendum result that the means for the United Kingdom to forge its own trade policy was a key factor behind the decision of so many people in voting to leave the European Union. The Prime Minister and his Brexit Secretary talk a good game in their supposed mission statement for Brexit, arguing that they’ll deliver a prosperous Brexit that protects the economy and unites the country, but the devil really is in the detail.

The Prime Minister doesn’t even see fit to mention his ambitions for the UK’s global trading future after we leave. The Brexit Secretary only mentions trade deals when making bizarre attacks about ‘Thatcherite paradises’ during comments on entirely hypothetical scenarios. It is one thing to talk about your plans for an economically prosperous Brexit deal, but it is quite another to actually deliver. On the basis of the comments from ministers opposite today, it is certainly worrying that the potential benefits and opportunities of Brexit from global trade have not entered into the Government’s thinking within this Throne Speech.

In future, I call upon ministers to put UK trade at the heart of their thinking on Brexit, and especially when it comes to our future relationship with the EU and the wider world.

Mr. Speaker,

I notice from the Throne Speech that the government have committed to increasing the statutory minimum of foreign aid to 1% of national income, so as to invest in the UN’s SDGs and help displaced people around the world. Now, my commentary on this policy isn’t one of criticism, but I do simply have to ask - what changed?

Not even two months ago, every Labour MP stood on a manifesto pledging a different aid policy, with a commitment to continue spending 0.7% of GNI on official development assistance. So far, I’m yet to see any real focus by the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary on why they have changed a policy from a manifesto they were so recently elected upon. It invites a whole range of other questions about their plan for international development throughout their term of office. What remains, and what else has changed? How can our allies, our international organisations, and all of the charitable bodies working within international development respond to a new government that has so casually changed policy on one key tenet of aid whilst simultaneously failing to confirm what else remains or changes? So, I call upon the Government to urgently clarify this matter before the House.

In our manifesto at the recent election, the Conservative Party was clear. We believe that UK aid helps millions and that we can help build a safer, healthier and more prosperous world through our development policy. Aid, in alignment with the SDGs, can end extreme poverty, save children’s lives and provide an education for young women and girls who have been so badly treated. However, when it comes to how we apply such aid spending, we must always remain vigilant and ensure that we are spending the money in an as effective manner as possible. On occasion, we do not believe that international definitions of aid spending are best in determining how this aid should be applied, and so it is important to work with our local allies and international organisations on the ground to gain their unique, first-hand insights of the effectiveness of aid spending and where it should go.

It is on this basis that I pose my second question to the Government. Have they carefully considered how the increase in international aid will be effectively spent? Any government can increase aid spending, but it is a separate issue to ensure that it best reaches those who need it, rather than being ineffectually spent and ultimately not benefitting those communities in dire need. The Conservatives believe in ensuring that and I call upon the Government to make clear how they will best utilise their aid spending too.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I must unfortunately touch upon yet another area of Government failure.

Veterans.

The Government saw fit to make only one solitary mention of defence within the Throne Speech, namely their commitment to continue investing in our armed forces. Now, this side of the House do not disagree with the notion of spending at least 2% of national income on defence, and indeed we support that move. However, we do vehemently disagree with the callous way veterans have already been forgotten within the first legislative programme of this Government.

I had many disagreements on policy with the former Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister’s immediate predecessor as Party Leader. But, it cannot be denied that the manifesto he created had a clear commitment to supporting veterans, through boosting the Armed Forces Covenant and rolling out a Homes Fit for Heroes programme. His successor however clearly doesn’t register these as priorities. The Throne Speech outlines housing policies for other groups, but ignores veterans, whilst we see absolutely no mention of protecting and boosting the Armed Forces Covenant at all.

I can only imagine, Mr. Speaker, the sheer disappointment, anger and frustration from our brave veterans at this ignorance of their needs by a Government that proclaims to care for the many. I call upon the Government to change tact immediately and focus on veterans once more.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, as I said at the opening of my remarks, this is a Government programme of uncertainty, negligence and ineffectiveness, across several key areas of foreign and defence policy.

From their debut, we sadly see that this Government is already failing to bring key groups with them in the creation of policy, ignoring others entirely, and failing to create a coherent, unified vision for the UK’s role in the world. I can only hope that our allies, and indeed every nation of the world, do not think any less of the United Kingdom as a result of the debut actions of this already ineffectual Government.

Redgrave

A-Team

 

Formerly Margot Redfearn MP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr Speaker,

 

I'd like to start by extending my thanks to Her Majesty the Queen for the delivery of her speech today. In the sixty-five years in which Her Majesty has reigned, she has overseen the transformation of this country, the transition of this country from a colonial power to a modern, progressive and forward thinking nation, at the heart of a global Commonwealth of Nations. Politicians come and go, but she has remained the one constant in all our lives - bridging generations, serving with distinguished duty and grace, and I think it is fair to say is an inspiration to us all.

 

Additionally, I would like to join in the tributes so eloquently laid out by my colleagues across the House to the victims of the appalling terrorist atrocities in Manchester and in London over the past few months, and the 72 people killed in the fire in Grenfell Tower - as well as their families and those who survived and will carry the pain thy experienced for the rest of their lives. They are all in our thoughts.

 

On to the contents of the speech, Mr Speaker, and I am sad to say that the Prime Minister's first address to this House was no better than his first to the nation outside 10 Downing Street. It was far longer, certainly, but managed to provide as much assurance as his brief original remarks did - absolutely none at all. The speech which has been presented today contains a socialist pie-in-the-sky vision of Britain, plans that this Government believe will make them look good but are fundamentally unworkable and unimplementable. Governing this country involves making the hard decisions, and at least knowing what you're doing. At a time when the British people need reassurance, all this government can muster up is fantasy.

Brexit is the issue that has, more than anything else, dominated life in this country for the past year. And yet, Mr Speaker, the government has given the outlines of a plan that simply cannot work. The Prime Minister has already made it clear that he sees Brexit as a burden rather than an opportunity - perhaps this half baked vision designed to fail is to make his own life easy? The government wants us to leave the single market, but at the same time they wish to retain "as many benefits" of it as possible. The whole concept of the European Union's single market is based, as the Leader of the Opposition said, on the four freedoms - the free movement of goods, capital, services and people across the single market. There is not a chance, not one single chance at all, that the European Union will accept a settlement with this country where we can have the benefits of that single market without accepting the four freedoms - it would undermine the entire EU. What this government wants, by their own admission, is an unequal relationship with the EU, one in which decisions about our borders, our trade and our economy are made without our decision in Brussels - no say, no control, no chance the British people will accept this farce of a Brexit. Although, considering the views of the government's paid backers in Plaid Cymru, and their reliance on the Green Party, perhaps a Brexit designed to fail is what they are banking on to stay in power.

 

Outwith Brexit, the further you get into this speech, Mr Speaker, the more dangerous it becomes. It is impossible to look at the governments reckless proposals in regards to employment without fear for the state that they are going to leave the country in if they are allowed to continue with these plans. The government talks incessantly about workers rights, but it is important to remember the value of that word - "rights". The right to join a trade union, or not to. The right to take part in negotiations over pay with a union, or not to. The right to strike, or not to. As far as I can see it, the government's proposals totally undermine the rights of workers to engage with unions or not. These proposals mandate that workers join a union, that unions will be given undue influence to gain access to workplaces, and that sectoral bargaining will be enforced across all sectors of our economy - meaning that workers will be forced to join a union representing their sector even if they don't wish to do so. A return to the closed shop policies of the past, in which workers are forced to join a union against their will, is not enforcing worker's rights - it is an affront to them. The news also that the government will be banning zero-hours contracts, a form of contract where the majority of employees are either students or older people - who are looking for the flexibility that such a contract brings - will wreak havoc on the sectors which rely on these workers and put good, honest and decent people out of work. Once again, so much for the rights of people who work.

 

I would like to focus on my own portfolio in the Shadow Cabinet, and the governments proposals - or lack thereof in some areas. I agree with the government on their proposals to make sure that communities outwith the large towns and cities are properly invested in and supported, and look forward to seeing their proposals on the matter. However, the lack of clarity we have on the government's plans for tenant's rights reforms worries me. Considering the dangerous rhetoric that some on the Government benches and other parts of this House have spouted in the past about the rental market and landlords, I am concerned that their proposals for tenant's rights reform will plunge the rental market into chaos, and perhaps result in many rental properties being withdrawn from the market if these are not implemented in a correct fashion. Terms such as "rent protection" may sound reasonable, but it must be a matter of urgency for the government to clarify what these plans will be in order to provide reassurance to both tenants and landlords. On the matter of constitutional reform, which the government has adopted as one of their flagship policies, I am befuddled and confused by the government's decision to announce both an independent commission on the constitution and a legislative package of reform at the same time. Whilst policies such as Votes at 16 are clearly being made to keep the support of the parties propping this government up, the government has essentially undermined it's new commission before it has even been formed - by announcing a huge change to the electorate and their plans to gut the House of Lords. What is the point in throwing away taxpayers money on this if the government has already made up it's mind about what needs changed without listening to anyone else?.

 

Finally, I was dismayed to see no specific mention of Scotland or Northern Ireland in the speech, and no commitment to maintaining the Union of nations that make up the UK. At a time where the government is in bed with Welsh nationalists and the threat posed by separatist parties remains high, the fact that the government couldn't even be bothered to mention Scotland or Northern Ireland concerns me greatly. Whilst I agree with the decision to grant more powers to Wales, the government's bung to Plaid - promising to raise the Welsh budget compared to no such commitment to the rest of the nations - risks creating a union of unequals, and that cannot be allowed to happen.

 

From a disastrous Brexit proposal, to their reckless and illiberal approach to worker's rights, to housing and the devolved nations, it is clear that this country deserves a lot better than this reckless fantasy the government has pledged. And when this government inevitably loses it's backers and falls, and the British people have their say at a general election, I am sure that they will remember how badly they have been let down.

The Hon. James Robertson MP

Shadow Home Secretary (1986 - present)

Shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (1985 - 1986)

Member of Parliament for Motherwell South (1983 - present)

Member of Parliament for Motherwell and Wishaw (October 1974 - 1983)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Mr. Speaker,

 

"I rise today with some honor to answer the adress of our Majesty. She has given it with the usual grace and sensibility that we have come to know and love from our sovereign of 65 years. The British nation has changed much since she first took the crown: from a colonial Empire to a Commonwealth of Nations, sharing her position as a symbol of continuity and friendship with us.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to dedicate most, if not all, of my speech towards my remarks to the Net Zero Strategy. Mr. Speaker: climate change, biodiversity loss, and destruction of our nature are some of the most dangerous and, sadly, acute issues that we face at this moment. The climate crisis is the biggest problem to solve for our generation. We must go forth now and bring about the Green Sustainable Economy and Society that we need to maintain the ecological health of this planet. If the other side considers these words to be doom-speaking, they let them be so.

When they were in office, their Prime Minister ended onshore wind projects, scrapped solar subsidies, and completely forgot about the energy efficiency schemes that were lowering carbon emissions for hundreds of buildings. At the same time, they almost stopped the insulation goals for housing, they failed their own plans to make all houses 'carbon-free' by 2016, and they blocked legislation that would have allowed pollution caps and emission checks on cars. The legacy of the now opposition party regarding green policies is appalling.

Now, Mr. Speaker. I will go to the plans of our government to remedy those defaults. I am glad to hear that the Government is committed to the Net Zero Goal for 2040. I look forward to debating what plans and actions can be taken to make those goals a reality. I also look forward towards the new Environment Bill. Mr. Speaker: the state of our nature, like so many places in the world, is deteriorating. Climate change is impacting biodiversity, including birds and mammals, and making already vulnerable ecosystems even more vulnerable. And I can already hear the comments from the opposite side, calling me an 'alarmist'. But they know as well as I do that we running out of time. The UN goal of maximal 2 degree higher earth temperature this century is being rapidly endangered. Animal species are going extinct, plantlife is dying, and weather patterns are changing dangerously for our own communities as well as our nature. 

But I am not here only to speak as a climate activist, or 'alarmist' as the opposite benches will surely call me, but also to ask if the government will reverse the disastrous course taken by the last Conservative government. Will we see the return of onshore wind, solar panels, and other forms of clean energy? Will we restart with an innovative and ambitious goal regarding our energy efficiency plans, investing in insulation, decarbonising of homes, and energy-saving measures in water use, heating, and light? Will we finally start taking punitive measures against car emissions, and kickstart our production of alternatives to fossil fuels? Mr. Speaker, if I would be leading, the answer to all of these questions would be yes. And I rest assured knowing that my right honourable friends, the Secretary of State for Energy and Infrastructure, and the Secretary of State for the Green Deal, are indeed supporters of the new sustainable economy that we need to build and protectors of the natural environment that we must seek to preserve.

Mr. Speaker, on a final further note to those car emissions I spoke of: a good alternative to car use, relies on an broad, inclusive, and sustained network of public transport. I am thankful that the High Speed 2 project is going ahead, With Phase 1 between London and Birmingham starting in the next years. In my view, the revitalization of many railway links must be realised in the coming years: not least of all, the excellent work of West Midlands Trains and Birmingham Metro. The growth of Birmingham, and also my constituency, has made the need for good railroad links all the more prevalent: the new Curzon Street Station, as part of HS2, will usher in new possibilities for our great city. And this kind of public transport is all the more important in our modern world. We need to continue electrification of existing lines, so that we will increase capacity, speeds, and safety, while at the same time cutting emissions. Estimates are that we can cut almost 75% of train emissions if we transfer existing outdated diesel vehicles with electric ones...they emit almost 6 kg per mile less. I won't bore you with calculations...let's just say it's 42 thousand kg per mile, per weekday. I look forward not only to see the return of train services to communities, but also the possibilities of light rail in many of our cities. Let's say goodbye to diesel trains and buses: let's welcome in the electric train and tram.

Thank you Mr. Speaker.

Labour MP for Manchester Blackley (1970-present)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Speaker, 

Allow me to begin as many of my colleagues before me have by expressing my deepest sympathies for those killed and harmed in the London Bridge attack, the attack in Manchester, and the Grenfell Tower disaster. All of these events are equally tragic, because they all have resulted in the untimely death of British citizens who were taken from us too soon. These ancient islands have withstood so much, primarily because we find strength in coming together and standing shoulder to shoulder as a united family of nations. This moment must be no different. We have an eternal obligation to honor those who were lost by committing to not simply honor their memory, but to resolve ourselves here and now to correct the core problems that allowed these disasters to occur in the first place. Parliament must take urgent action to improve fire safety, upgrade outdated buildings, and hold landlords accountable when they refuse to listen to tenants. We must also be unrelenting in our determination to root out terrorism, destroy the organizations that prop them up, and better protect our people from terrorist threats on our own shores. Inaction is not an option, as the lives of our people depend upon it. 

While I congratulate the Labour Party no managing to cobble together a deal that has allowed them to enter Government, I must say that as I stand here before you all, I find today to be a sad day for Britain. We have a Prime Minister who doesn't want the job, a Brexit Secretary that doesn't believe in Brexit, and a Government that is proposing an agenda which is set to run the British economy into the ground. The Prime Minister's speech in this debate underscores that fact: he is, at his core, proposing that we use the policies of yesterday to solve the problems of today. If this is truly, as some MPs are saying, the Prime Minister's "speech of a lifetime," I would hate to see what the Prime Minister delivers when he's having an off day. 

My colleagues on this side of the House, particularly those on the front benches and my friend the Leader of the Opposition, have already made short work of the Government's underfunded and underdeveloped proposals long before I had the opportunity to rise. They've explained, in detailed and compelling fashion, that despite only being in its early days the Government is already in over its head with uncosted spending proposals. In an attempt to promise the electorate the world, the Prime Minister has unveiled an agenda that will see British taxpayers on the hook for the renationalization of rail, the creation of a bureaucratic National Education System, and an explosion in the foreign aid budget. These short term promises will lead to a long-term disaster, when Labour's unfunded spending proposals result in an explosion in debt, increases in inflation, and a rise in interest rates. The era of responsible fiscal stewardship has ended. 

I believe a matter that deserves more intention in this debate Mr. Speaker, is how the Government proposes to pay for the proposals they have costed. If you read their white paper, you will find towards the end of the document an unsurprising list detailing their plans to increase taxes on individuals and businesses in order to finance their spending spree. If, however, you read the fine print you will find one particularly egregious financing tool Labour intends to use to pay for their agenda. The Government proposes to end the married persons' tax allowance, a form of tax relief that they inaccurately decry as a, "tax giveaway." In reality, Mr. Speaker, the married persons allowances enable newly married couples greater economic freedom. It empowers couples to save for their future and begin planning for their family's success. While the Labour Party may consider reducing taxes on hardworking newlyweds a "giveaway," those of us on this side of the House recognize it for what it really is: a vital tool that supports the most important aspect of British society: the family. With this speech the Prime Minister has declared war upon British families, and I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition will agree with me when I say that we will fight them on this at every turn. 

One of the items on the Government's legislative agenda that concerns me most, Mr. Speaker, is their plan to rip up existing trade union law and impose sectoral collective bargaining throughout the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has so far been spared from sectoral bargaining, the practice of setting industry-wide agreements between unions and management on matters relating to pay, benefits, and working conditions. Rather than a specific union representing workers at a specific company negotiating with management, Labour would have all workers in a given industry be collectively represented by a massive union which will then be charged with negotiating an agreement for all of them. Labour will likely say that this proposal will enhance worker leverage and negotiating power - in reality, it is a proposal that aims to maximize the size and scale of union power at the expense of the best interests of the individual worker. 

The simple fact is that not all businesses are the same, and more importantly, no two workers at the same. While Tesco and a family run grocery store are technically both in the same industry, the sort of labor demands they face and the profits they enjoy are wildly different. The same is true about workers who are employed at these different businesses; their needs, aspirations, and expectations are all different. That difference is a good thing. It promotes competition, choice, and innovation, providing savings for consumers and agency for workers who can choose to seek employment elsewhere depending on the opportunity they're seeking. Under Labour's plan, hundreds of unrelated businesses would be forced to offer the same wages, the same benefits, and the same employment conditions. That would naturally translate to those businesses having increasingly similar overhead costs, and therefor increasingly similar prices for goods and services. 

I'll give Labour some credit - this policy is no doubt one of the fastest ways to expand the power and influence of the union bosses they work for. At the same time, it is also the fastest way to eliminate the free market, erode the competitive business practices that have underpinned the British economy for centuries, and destroy choice for consumers and workers. Sectoral bargaining will line the pockets of union bosses while robbing opportunity from the working people Labour claims to care about. 

This policy, Mr. Speaker, is endemic of a Government that is determined to impose one-size-fits-all policies upon the British people. Because for Labour, the people of this country are nothing more than numbers in a computer. They are data points, each indistinguishable from one another, all with the same needs and wants. They might not admit it, Mr. Speaker, but the policies they are proposing speak for them. In Labour's world, every worker must be unionized, every student must be educated by the state, and every person must contribute more and more of their hard-earned money to the Treasury. They are pawns to be moved around the socialist chessboard. Let me be clear: I utterly reject this worldview. I reject it because I recognize individuals for what they really are: unique persons with their own aspirations, totally different from one another. Their differences are a good thing, they should be celebrated, and Government policy should exist to support, not suppress, those differences. 

It is a sad day, Mr. Speaker, because Britain is led by individuals who would rather impose collectivist policies than embrace the unique talents of the British people. It is now our job, a job I take quite seriously, to oppose these policies at every turn and make the case to the British people that they deserve a Government that acts upon their will, not a Government determined to impress upon them the will of another. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr Speaker, I join all other tributes to Her Majesty and thank her for delivering her speech with grace and honour. 

Mr. Speaker, members of the Conservative Party might prefer to to debate a strawman Labour Party committed to everything reckless under the sun. They may desire to to hurl variations of their former Leader’s “Magic Money Tree” and call it a day. 

Unfortunately for the Tories who have risen to speak, they aren’t debating a strawman Labour Party. They’re debating an Government committed to ending the irresponsible economic approach advanced by their benches for the past seven years.   They’re debating a Labour Government committed to our Manifesto’s Fiscal Credibility Rule ensuring that our Government will not borrow to finance our day-to-day spending, but will make the necessary investments to rebuild our economy after seven years of suffocating austerity and ensure economic stability and prosperity in every community, particularly in those regions ignored by the previous Tory Government.

Let’s not mince words here: the Tory Government’s economic approach was not only immoral - forcing pensioners to subsist on less, underfunding vital services that ordinary people rely on, leaving communities across Britain without hope - it was also economically reckless. Deliberately slowing the economy to place downward pressure on wages and benefits may have enabled a few multinational corporations to make record profits, but it sent High Streets in community after community into a tail-spin. Workers, earning suppressed wages, could not spend at High Street business, High Street businesses either reduced their workforce, or shuddered entirely, placing even more downward pressure and exacerbating this cycle. This growth-suffocating cycle imposed by austerity artificially reduced our tax base, meaning that Britain had less revenue leading to justification for more cuts. 

This Queen’s Speech encapsulates the responsible, measured economic course this Labour Government promised it would deliver to voters and were sent to Westminster to implement. Our fully-costed commitments will meet the challenge. Our fully-costed manifesto will relieve the suffering imposed by the reckless course of austerity and allow Britain to meet the challenge of building a fair, just 21st Century economy. After seven years of neglect, this Government will meet British businesses need for a skilled workforce with our National Education Service, we will improve our neglected infrastructure, strengthen our supply chains, ensure certainty and stability in energy pricing - all of which will create a climate for business to thrive. This is a Queen’s Speech that will strengthen our High Streets and uplift our communities. 

I am proud that our Government will tackle the cost of living crisis and give workers more of a stake in economic decisions that impact us all, by augmenting our labour and industrial laws to reflect the 21st issues of work. We will end the pernicious practice of employee misclassification and learn from successful industrial models from countries like Germany, where giving working people more of a stake has paid profound dividends in terms of worker productivity and inequality reduction.  

This is a Queen’s Speech that offers a departure from seven years of misery and economic recklessness. The Tories can attempt to cynically spin our programme, but the reality is that the British public demands a new course for Britain, one that doesn’t recklessly cut, but rather responsibly acts to meet the litany of challenges our nation faces. Our manifesto reflects that and this Queen’s Speech reflects that. I look forward to enthusiastically entering the division chambers in favour, to save our High Streets, to uplift working people, to strengthen our markets, and to build a Britain for all. 

Steffan Lewis

Labour MP for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (2010-Present)

Chancellor of the Exchequer (2017-Present)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my friends and colleagues across the house who have paid tribute to Her Majesty for the gracious speech she delivered. For over sixty years she has reigned with grace and regality. In a world where the winds of leadership are ever shifting, she has remained a constant and stable symbol of our great nation. I wish to also associate myself with the other tributes mentioned in others speeches today, but especially to those victims of the  Grenfell Tower fire. Such a tragic loss of life should be unthinkable and I am committed to making sure such disasters never happen again. 

Mr. Speaker, while the Government has committed to follow through on the pledge we made in our manifesto, to reject the last seven years of austerity and chaos and embrace a view of nation that puts hardworking people above corporate profit, the Opposition can only resort to stirring up fear and misinformation. They clutch their pearls and rage at the programme we have laid out and that rage demonstrates that their absolute lack of concern for the people of this country. The Government is committed to reinvesting into education, healthcare, and other public services. Those reinvestments are necessary because of the mismanagement of the party opposite over the last seven years. The Leader of the Opposition would like to purge his record of supporting austerity, but he cannot. They tell the public they have learned their lesson, but when the Shadow Chancellor promises to slash time off for public sector workers, he demonstrates they haven’t changed at all. 

But what the last Government has taken, this Government will return. What we have seen in this debate is not just an example of conflicting parties, but of conflicting moral convictions, and that is nowhere more clear than in our commitment to housing reform. The previous government failed to keep up housing supply in line with demand. Being bound to traditional ideas, they  have failed to adapt to rising needs and therefore have exacerbated the growing housing crisis; making home ownership a dream to hope for instead of a goal to aspire to. But today we have committed to building the homes and meeting the demand. This not only means increasing the investment, but may also mean rethinking the fundamentals of building. It may mean transitioning from a planning system that stalls progress to one that is more systematic. I am personally committed to this study, and we will put forward our findings with common sense solutions. 

The former Government stripped young adults of their housing benefits, essentially telling them to figure it out and make due. But this policy is shameful. Yes Mr. Speaker, it is shameful to leave young adults just starting out to their fate. This reprehensible policy is morally bankrupt and it must go. The days of the cold and unsupportive Conservative austerity are over. Young people who are continuing their education or finding their footing in an everchanging world do not deserve the added pressures of insecure living situations, rather they deserve a strong start and a leg up. While the government of the past created an obstacle to stability, this government is assisting young people to find their own footing. Instead of telling eighteen to twenty-one year olds to make due, we are telling them “we support you”.

But we will go further Mr. Speaker. We have today promised to pass a tenants rights reform bill which will make sure that those who do not currently own a home may live somewhere without subjecting themselves to mistreatment from slumlords. By reforming tenants rights we are committed to capping rent increases to inflation levels, so that nobody is priced into homelessness. Tenants rights reform will ensure that private rented homes meet a decent standard of living so that nobody is forced to stay in unfit flats with drafts and vermin. We will terminate Section 21, protecting tenants from no-fault evictions so that they are left in the cold for no reason. 

Mr. Speaker, the severity of the housing crisis demands that we replace the last seven years of complacency and inaction with bold reform and ingenuity. It demands that we reject the callousness of the past with the convictions of the present. The banner of leadership has fallen on this Labour Government and we have taken up that call with boldness and are striving to build this great nation into a society that protects those most in need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by joining in the tributes to Her Majesty for delivering her speech with grace and honour. 

I would also like to echo the tributes made to the victims of the Grenfell disaster, the Manchester attack, and the London Bridge attack. 

Mr. Speaker, this speech outlines the beginning of a Progressive foreign policy approach built on the ideas that through compassion, hard work, and diplomacy, this Government can help change the world for the better.

This speech makes it clear this government will continue the fight to keep Britons safe by continuing our role in the international coalition to defeat Daesh in Iraq and Syria. 

This speech outlines righting the wrongs that happened nearly sixty years ago when people were forcibly removed from their homes and forced off the islands that would make up British Indian Ocean territory. This government will make sure that families will be able to return to their homes again. 

Though I guess, I shouldn’t be surprised by the fact that the members opposite just couldn’t be bothered to comment on it. The former Foreign Secretary clearly shows how little self-reflection the Tories have had for the sins of our past. Given he was casually quoting The Road to Mandalay on his trip in January to Myanmar. 

Mr. Speaker, this house needs no lectures from wannabe colonialists on how they might agree with the good of international aid, but they really want to make sure it’s being spent “properly”. But I’ll give him credit that he is right when he states, “Aid, in alignment with the SDGs, can end extreme poverty, save children’s lives and provide an education for young women and girls who have been so badly treated.” 

That’s exactly why this government will be increasing how much aid we give out, because the fight against extreme poverty around the globe is not over, we can do more to improve education around the globe, and we can help people fleeing violence and religious and ethnic persecution. The aid will be carefully spent to improve the lives of people who need it. 

Mr. Speaker, having read the reports coming out of Myanmar about the crimes being done to the Rohingya, I can’t stand here and say that we shouldn’t be doing more to help them. That Britain cannot and should not aid help them escape and find new and better lives away from senseless persecution. This government will do more to help those in need around the globe. 

I’m proud that we can commit more to helping those in need at home and around the globe. 

Mr. Speaker, I must admit I find the Shadow Foreign Secretary’s declaration that a throne speech that fails to mention veterans is a sign of a failed government a bit dubious. I guess we should look at Hansard and see if the member from Hertsmere said the same about the Governments headed by the member from Maidenhead and the former member from Witney as none of the Throne speeches delivered under those governments had a single mention of veterans. 

I noticed the Shadow Foreign Secretary must be quite disappointed that this government has made a firm commitment to NATO, as I’m sure he was ready to thoroughly muddy the waters on that front as well in order to claim some points with the right-wing press. To his dismay this government will always make a firm commitment to following our international obligations. 

Mr. Speaker, we cannot simultaneously recognize that there is work to be done to help out repressed people, people in extreme poverty, victims of modern-day slavery, and those fleeing persecution and stand on the sideline and do nothing. That is why this government will be standing up to do more to help all of those in need. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr Speaker, 

I join my colleagues in expressing gratitude to Her Majesty for her most gracious address. If I were to make one comment for the address's improvement, it would be to allow Her Majesty, in a future address, to speak more to a Scotland that is a rich part of her heritage and of both her personal and official life. A descendant of the House of Stuart on both sides of her family, Her Majesty's ties to Scotland run quite deep. Balmoral is one of her favourite residences- and it shows some of the best that Scotland has to offer.  Her attendance at every Braemar Gathering since her coronation is a welcome and constant reminder that our culture is not only alive and well but that it provides true value to Her Majesty and her family. I imagine Her Majesty would admit those Gatherings are more entertaining than some of the debates she oversees here. 

But sadly, there was no mention of Scotland in Her Majesty's address, and it represents a missed opportunity to demonstrate to the people of that country, my country, that their voices were listened to in this most recent election. Yes, this address heralds about the end of austerity, but even the Opposition now admits the time has come to end this disastrous and even deadly cutting of funding for public services. Yes, this address announces protection of the NHS and support for workers, an invigorated drive for a greener future, and investments in housing, but again even the Opposition admits these things are just as important.

The only mention one could conceivably find is that there is a vague mention of reversing cuts. No increased investment. No increased authority for a country that has proven time and again that it can do a better job for providing for local needs than Westminster clearly can, particularly looking at the last few years of spending cuts that has robbed the Scottish people of billions of pounds that could have been used to strengthen public services and provide for economic growth. I hope that the pledge to reverse those cuts will see those billions of pounds returned to Scotland where they can be put to good use, including in the continued greening of our economy- where nearly 40% of energy produced has come from renewables already and where we have demonstrated how a green economy can lead to the economic development of underserved communities. 

Not only does this address neglect to mention Scotland, but there is one area where the voice of Scotland will be ignored: Brexit. Both the Government and the Opposition have spoken about this, and I don't think that it's unfair to say that this has the potential to be one of the biggest tasks this Government will be undertaking. For decades our economy, particularly in Scotland, was built around the promise of the Single Market and the benefits that came with it. That's why the EU was so central to the independence referendum in 2014- and why the campaign against independence was as persuasive as it was when it said that the best way to stay in the EU and continue to access that market was to vote No. As we all know, the Scottish people responded to that.

And now in the most recent Brexit referendum, Scotland resoundingly voted to retain its ties to the EU- the way they were told they would be able to do when it came to voting No in 2014. 32 of 32 councils voted to stay in the EU. 62% of voters said they wanted to remain. And now there's a fight in this body about just how much we can completely ignore those council areas, those 62% of Scottish voters. Even the Government who wants to "retain the benefits of the Single Market" as much as possible- Her Majesty said so herself- is rejecting the easiest way to do this: that is, to remain in the Single Market. And frankly that is a poor choice. 

The Opposition says that it's unfair to move to carbon neutrality by 2040 when businesses have been planning for 2050. Putting aside the fact that it is the weakest possible argument one could make about accelerating our push towards carbon neutrality, it's interested that with the same mouth they are saying we should expect businesses to accept the harshest Brexit possible and the biggest change to access to Europe- our largest trading partner- as quickly as humanly possible. Yes, we should provide support for businesses to assist them in the move to carbon neutrality. Yes, we should expect that support to be stronger to meet the accelerated timeline. 

But should we also say that while we're working to green your energy over the course of the next 23 years that we're also going to cause you to have to rethink your supply chains, your access to the largest export market, and the standards which you have been conforming to in the most catastrophic way? The Opposition is saying yes to that, and it seems this Government is doing the same. 

At the same time, this Government cannot even commit to consulting with the devolved countries on Brexit. Civic society yes. Businesses yes. Trades unions yes. Scotland- a country that voted so overwhelmingly for Remain? Apparently no. 

Mr Speaker, it would be unfair to say there's no promise to this address. It would be grossly unfair to say that the Opposition could do better because we know they couldn't. Scotland has paid the price of their policies for too long already. 

But what it is fair to say is that this address offers little surety to Scotland. Both directly- because there's scant mention of this proud, strong, productive country- and indirectly- by the potential consequences of a Brexit that clearly won't listen to the Scottish voters. We can only hope that Scotland is more on the mind of a Prime Minister who claims heritage than is contained in this speech. 

We in Scotland look forward to welcoming Her Majesty to this year's Braemar Gathering, as we do every year. Until then, we will make sure our voice is heard so that our hopes for a Government that will deliver for Scotland- hopes that are hardly buoyed by this address- turn into reality. 

Devon Milne MP

MP for Aberdeen North (2015 - ) | Scottish National Party

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr Speaker,

Firstly, I would like to echo the comments and sentiments expressed by others about the horrific attacks in London and Manchester and the heart breaking tragedy that occurred at Grenfell Tower. My thoughts and solidarity are with all those affected at this time. I would also like to express my condolences to the family and friends of Tim Farron, who tragically lost his life recently and to all those affected by the events surrounding Diacon. My friend, the Member for Coventry South was right that it will never be the same again.

Finally, I would like to take a moment to update the house on the health of my Right Honourable Friend, the Member for Islington North. Unfortunately, he is not sitting on this bench as Prime Minister, but I am sure he is proud that this government's agenda is being put into action to deliver transformative change for Britain. He is recovering well and I am sure will continue to be this house’s strongest and most passionate advocate for social justice and a society for the many, not just privileged the few.

It is a strange moment for me being a minister on this side of the house right now. If you would have told me this a few short months ago, never mind 2 years ago when I first been elected as we suffered defeat in the 2015 General Election, I would never have believed you. But I hope in taking this role I can provide inspiration to young people across the country that they can achieve whatever they set their minds on, and this government will do everything we can to help them every step of the way to unlock their true potential.

Young people all across Britain aspire for better, we are a nation of aspiration, but the great Tony Benn spoke about it back in the 1980s and it still echoes true today, Britain appears to have a contempt for skill. More specifically, British governments in recent decades appear to have had a contempt for skill. That is something that has changed with my party coming to power. Not only will the National Education Service that we are introducing help those who wish to pursue academic qualifications, but also those who wish to pursue more hands-on, technical and skill-based educational paths. The contempt for skill ends here and now. Britain, under this government, will be a leader in skills with our cradle-to-grave system, and this will help the young people of today and tomorrow. Our proposals for a National Education Service will also support young children and parents with greater access to free and affordable childcare and improve schools across this country that have suffered the brunt of brutal austerity for the last 7 years of Tory rule.

As my friend, the Member for Edinburgh South, talked about in his speech earlier, this government will also return Housing Benefit to young adults aged 18 to 21 who were callously stripped of it by the Conservative Party whilst they were in office. This government will not abandon young people as they are just finding their footing. Instead, we will support them to help them achieve more fulfilling and prosperous lives. This commitment is also shown by our proposals not only to turn the minimum wage into a real living wage, but also to extend the minimum wage to all workers aged 18 and over. Young people’s labour should not be exploited on the cheap just because of their age, this government is righting that wrong.

And while this government is giving young people a future to fight for, it is also committed to fighting for our future. As a young person, I am terrified about the existential threat of climate change that our society faces, and I trust the science to know that we must take immediate and radical action to protect our planet and our futures. This government is doing what it must to take that action, as outlined in our manifesto. That is why we are fighting for Net Zero by 2040, supporting renewable alternatives to deeply-damaging fossil fuels which are leading us on this road to climate breakdown and introducing an Environmental Protections Bill to improve our environmental standards. Britain, under this government, will be a world leader in facing up to the climate crisis, and I could not be prouder of that.

And finally, whilst this government is fighting for our future, it is also committed to giving young people a voice in it. I am so proud that our government has committed to Votes at 16 as part of our constitutional reform package. Over the last 200 or so years since the Reform Act of 1832, we have seen huge advancements in the representation of people across Britain, with the working class and women earning the vote in the early 1900s, adults aged under 21 earning the vote in 1967 and later under the last Labour government earning the right to stand for election, a reform I would not be standing here for if it had not of being passed. This government is taking the next step in expanding and improving our democracy by giving a voice to 16 and 17-year-olds. In Britain, a 16-year-old can pay direct taxation, get married and join the army, but they have no say in the future of this country. That is not right and that will change under this government.

I will close my remarks by saying this. This government will do more to advance the lives and prosperity of the young people in our society than any government in British history, from education to the environment to democratic engagement. Whilst past governments have let the young people of Britain down, this government is on our side. We committed to fight for the many in our manifesto, and that includes Britain’s young citizens. We will live up to that commitment. After almost a decade of broken promises from the Liberal Democrats and Tory austerity, this government is ready to deliver for Britain’s future.

James McCluskey- Labour Member of Parliament

Member of Parliament, Liverpool Riverside (1983-Present)
Deputy Leader of the Labour Party (1986-)
Shadow Secretary of State for Employment, Trade & Industry (1986-)

Member of Parliament, Liverpool Scotland Exchange (1974-83)
Minister for Industry (1974-75)
Minister for Environment (1975-76)
Minister for Energy (1976-79)
Shadow Secretary of State for Industry (1980-81)

Member of Parliament, Liverpool Exchange (1970-74)

Liverpool City Council, Dingle Ward (1959-68)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr Speaker,

I would like to rise again and respond to some of the points raised by the Government in their responses. I thought it was telling that many on the Treasury Benches could not bring themselves to talk about what Labour would do, instead contenting themselves to relitigating the events of the last seven years. It is clear to me that many on the Treasury Benches do not believe the lines they have been given to parrot but say them they must. After all, the lunatics have most definitely taken over the Labour asylum.

Mr Speaker the Leader of the Opposition, and many of his frontbenchers, have risen in this debate to decry the fact that some sums just don't add up. They said, some of them as red in the face as the red on their lapel pins, that they had a fully costed manifesto. Mr Speaker this Throne Speech is nothing short of a repudiation of that Manifesto, far to the left of anything that the Right Honourable Member for Islington North or his Trades Union handlers could possibly have dreamt of. The simple fact of the matter is that we have £50bn in new and expanded taxes, taking newlyweds, workers, and homeowners alike and we still have £100bn in unfunded commitments, not to mention Net Zero on top of that. If you thought the Right Honourable Member for Islington North was on the left, clearly we've seen nothing yet.

Mr Speaker despite the protestations of the Government, some of them foaming at the mouth for all the good it did this debate, we have no credible explanation for how we will pay for the majority of the commitments in this Throne Speech. The Prime Minister is too kind in offering me a copy of his homework, I shall have to politely decline just as I declined to read from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's copy of Mao's little red book when he offered it for a spot of light reading back in 2015. In the General Election campaign the Labour Party allocated just £2.1bn for social care investment, now they want to turn social care into its own National Care Service. Mr Speaker this will cost the British taxpayer 14 and a half times more, over £30bn per year in extra spending so that Lord Sugar can have social care free at the point of use. We have £6bn in unfunded foreign aid commitments from this Government. Imagine that, borrowing from foreign investors to pay for foreign aid? I am all for helping the less fortunate Mr Speaker, I am proud that we on this side of the House legislated for a legally binding 0.7% target of GDP being spent on Foreign Aid, but to take that number and borrow an additional £6bn is basic fiscal mismanagement. That's £6bn that will have to come out of higher taxes today or higher taxes tomorrow to pay for the debt.

But Mr Speaker I could speak for hours about the left wing nature of this Throne Speech when it comes to economics. I could talk and talk about the unfunded spending commitments and how the costings we actually got bear little resemblance to the actual costs of the measures proposed, but Mr Speaker we must once again broach the difficult subject of Brexit. I have no time for the view that Brexit is a burden as expressed by the Prime Minister, I do not believe that the British people got it wrong as the Secretary of State for Leaving the European Union did during the campaign, Brexit is an opportunity. Mr Speaker I have been nothing short of disappointed to see the incredible feats that the Government have gone to to ignore a simple question. Will we have full control of our borders, our laws, and our trade after this process is concluded? Mr Speaker in his speech to the House the Brexit Secretary refused to even mention Freedom of Movement, beyond a throwaway remark buried in the middle of his speech. Remember Mr Speaker, Brexit is his job. The Prime Minister as well refused to rule out the continuation of free movement, merely saying that we'd have "more" control. Mr Speaker the people of this country will not accept "more", they will only accept total control of our borders, complete sovereignty. If Labour cannot even answer this simple question before the Secretary of State travels to Brussels then what hope do we have of getting a good deal?

Mr Speaker on the two leading issues of the day this Government has already been found to be wanting. It is clear that the kind of economy they want to run is high tax, high debt, highly unstable. Luckily, the type of Brexit they want compliments this, no certainty, no control, no decisions. We are staring down the barrel of a £50bn tax hike, £100bn in borrowing, and a Brexit which does not give us control of our borders, laws, or trade. A horrifying triple-barrelled shotgun pointed at the wallets and futures of every citizen of this country. For shame.

Arnold J. Appleby

MP for North Bedfordshire (1979-Present)
Shadow Foreign Secretary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Speaker,

I would like to rise again to contribute, given that the Foreign Secretary has broken cover to give us all an update on foreign policy within the context of this Address. I’m afraid to say he’s remarkably lacking in substance when it comes to his reply on the questions I posed.

Indeed, rather than actually engage substantially with any questions about why his party has so suddenly U-turned on their international aid policy from a mere two months ago, and indeed who they consulted when doing so, he resorts to cheap insults instead. It might be a zinger line in a student union debating society to claim that this side of the House are “wannabe colonialists” but this is 2017, Mr. Speaker, not 1917. The days of politicians on any side of the House dreaming of the British Empire are long over and frankly I’m baffled as to why the Foreign Secretary seems so determined to paint this side of the House as so.

Perhaps it’s an attempt to distract from the real questions about the Government’s quick change in policy, but regardless it is not the manner that should be befitting of the Government’s chief diplomat. I hope that when the Foreign Secretary goes in for talks with representatives of any country in his new role, he holds his tongue lest he makes any faux pas.

Mr. Speaker,

The Foreign Secretary’s defence about his Government’s lack of attention to veterans in this Throne Address is to point at this side of the House in some kind of ‘gotcha’ moment about previous Throne Addresses, as if that excuses the way this new Government has so casually missed their manifesto commitments to veterans in their debut programme.

The Conservative led Governments from 2010 to 2017 made clear our commitment to veterans from the start, through policy and action. In our time in government, we delivered mental health support and priority access to medical treatments for veterans, we honoured our commitment to enshrine the Armed Forces Covenant into law, we protected pensions for our servicemen and women, and we ensured that those personnel injured in the line of duty had access to world-class rehabilitation facilities.

In fact, I might have been willing to concede what I consider to be the Foreign Secretary’s point, namely that a Government doesn’t necessarily have to mention veterans policy in a Throne Address, but frankly I cannot when we’ve still heard nothing from Labour about their intentions for veterans throughout their term of office. Indeed, the Foreign Secretary still didn’t mention their intentions in his reply, instead choosing to focus on my prior remarks in Hansard.

Again, this new Government had a chance to show their commitment to veterans. Again, they have failed. I can only hope they shape up on this matter proactively in future, for the sake of our veteran community.

Mr. Speaker,

I wish I could say these examples of cheap, bizarre attacks and lacking clarity are restricted to the realm of foreign affairs, but alas they are not. As we’ve seen from the contributions of various government ministers and Labour MPs to this debate so far, the Government has no answer for any question beyond their usual talking points, more at home on a picket line or student union than the corridors of Whitehall. As my Right Honourable Friend, the Leader of the Opposition, said the Government has been found wanting on the two leading issues of the day and they’re still not tackling the very creditable concerns expressed by Members during this debate. It’s time for this Government to shape up before their ineptitude costs the British people dearly.

Redgrave

A-Team

 

Formerly Margot Redfearn MP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...