Rail Strikes

Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and John McDonnell

Wednesday 15th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

The hon. Gentleman knows what these negotiations are like. My background is the National Union of Mineworkers, then the TUC and so on—I have been a trade unionist for the last 50 years—and in every sort of negotiation, the key issue is just getting through that door. Once we get through that door and are face to face starting those negotiations off, anything can happen. We have all been there, and we can have a bloody great row, but at least we are talking. That is all the RMT is asking for.

Let me just say that Members need to know the atmosphere at the moment. I have been talking at various union conferences—I was at Unison yesterday and all the rest—and there is a concern that we are going back to the 1980s, and I saw what happened in the 1980s. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), who is here, was an active miner at the time, and I was a member of the NUM head office. What happened then was that there was a Government will to somehow take on the trade union movement, and we got described as the “enemy within”.

If anyone thinks it is to their advantage politically to start taking the RMT on as the enemy within in this situation, they are sorely mistaken, because it is not just about the RMT. At every union conference I have been to, there is a real anxiety. There is an anxiety about protection of their members against this cost of living crisis, and I have to say that there is an anxiety about protecting themselves against some of the threats that have come from the Government—minimal services, bans on overtime and all the rest—which is inflammatory when we are trying to get a negotiated settlement.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[John McDonnell]

I do not have time, to be honest, or do I get a second extra minute? [Interruption.] I will give way.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is it not ironic, or does he not think it is ironic that, with a Prime Minister who talks about a higher-wage economy, the minute people start—

--- Later in debate ---

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

I am trying to do that and face the right hon. Gentleman, which is not easy, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Surely it is ironic that, with a Prime Minister who talks about a higher-wage economy, the first time people come along just wanting to maintain wages—not let wages go lower—his Government are opposing it, with the right hon. Gentleman having to make a very reasonable case in this House pointing out why trade union members have to do what they are doing.

[John McDonnell]

Perhaps I pointed in the wrong direction, but I meant no disrespect to the hon. Member.

I have talked at several trade union conferences and I have been consulting trade unions in my own constituency, and the big fear at the moment is that their members are facing a potential avalanche of costs coming at them, and they have had their wages largely frozen for 12 years, with some having in effect had a wage cut. They do not see any light at the end of the tunnel, and they see a Government now threatening intimidatory legislation to undermine trade union rights further, so then we ask the question: what do they do? All they can do—this is all that is left to them—is to withdraw their labour, and that is what we are seeing.

This is not just in the RMT. Unite has 100 disputes taking place at the moment. The general secretary of Unison has for the first time—I have never heard this before—said to Unison members, “Go back to your branches and prepare for action.” The PCS is in dispute as well. If we look at what is happening, it is because we have working-class people frightened for their futures and deeply insecure about their futures. They are faced with a Government who, to be frank, on this particular issue will not even open the door for a meeting. That is why the atmosphere has been so fouled at the moment. I just think that Conservative Members should know that this is not the time for braying speeches; it is a time for consideration and an element of responsibility to be introduced into this debate.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and John McDonnell

Thursday 6th December 2018 Commons Chamber

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

Next week, we will make one of the most significant decisions that most hon. Members will ever make in this House, and it will impact on current and future generations. So far, hon. Members have ensured that we approach the debate leading to that decision with the seriousness of tone that it warrants—indeed, I think we have seen some of the best of the House over the past few days—and we have to find a way through.

On Wednesday, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said:

“My final plea to the House is as follows. Now is the moment to tell each other the truth… No one is going to get everything they thought they would get. No one is going to receive all the things they were told they would receive. All of us are going to have to compromise, and we are going to have to find a way forward that a majority can agree upon.”—[Official Report, 4 December 2018; Vol. 650, c. 802.]

I fully concur with those sentiments, and that is what we are about in this coming period.

I wish to focus on four points—I recognise that a large number of Members wish to speak, so I will be as succinct as possible. My first point, on which I hope we can find widespread majority and common ground across the House, is that we must seek to prevent a no-deal situation occurring by either imposition or default. Secondly—and I say this in as straight a way as possible—it is increasingly obvious that the Prime Minister’s deal is neither politically nor economically acceptable, and neither is it capable of bringing the House or country together.

Thirdly, as the House looks for an alternative, Labour has proposed a plan that we believe could unite the country, by addressing the concerns raised in the referendum campaign while securing the benefits of a close and collaborative relationship with our European partners. That is what we are about. My fourth point is an expression of a worrying concern, given the current state of our economy, about the impact of a bad deal on our communities.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

As we know, next week the Government’s deal will go down in flames, whatever putative deal is in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman will get nowhere, and the UK will look down the barrel of no deal or no Brexit. When looking down the barrel of no deal or no Brexit, will he also pick up a microphone, look at the camera and tell the people what he would choose: no deal, or no Brexit?

[John McDonnell]

I would choose what the House is seeking—in good will, I believe—which is a compromise that secures the will of the people while at the same time protecting jobs and the economy. [Interruption.] Government Members shout that that is the current deal, but at some stage in the next few days reality will dawn on people that it is highly unlikely that that deal will secure a majority position in the House. We have to be honest with each other and take this opportunity for an honest expression of views. Not only will the deal not secure a majority in this House, but it is certainly not bringing the country together.

Charter for Budget Responsibility

Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and John McDonnell

Wednesday 20th July 2016 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House calls on the Government to withdraw the Charter for Budget Responsibility: Autumn 2015 update, which was laid before this House on 12 October 2015, and to lay before the House at the earliest opportunity an alternative update which provides the basis for stabilising the UK economy and providing long-term investment for growth.

I see that the Chancellor has not joined us today. I was hoping he was going to improve on the record of his predecessor for attendance, but it is good to see the Chief Secretary on every occasion.

What the leave vote said to many was that a new economic approach is needed. Too many of our country’s places and people feel they have been left behind, and this Government’s current fiscal rules are clearly exposed as inappropriate for an economy facing this kind of shock. So we need a new framework for fiscal policy that will support the investment this country desperately needs, yet all of us have been left without any clarity from the Government over their future direction. Business groups today report they are increasingly concerned about the Government’s current lack of direction and their lack of interaction with the Government. The lack of a clear plan is already harming investment.

The Prime Minister indicated in her initial speech that she was looking to set a new direction for Government economic policy. We agree that a change of course is needed, including more investment and an industrial strategy.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman is hinting at what we hope will be a change of direction for the Government. For far too long, the Government have concentrated more on achieving a balanced budget than on managing the economy. They have not been creating demand. They should have been listening to the likes of Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz and Richard Murphy, all of whom have been giving the Government a map to follow for years. The fact that they have failed to follow it explains why we are in this situation today.

[John McDonnell]

I will come on to the way in which the fiscal rule implementation has harmed the economy and prevented economic growth, resulting in the slowest recovery from recession in our history, but I shall now press on. I listened—

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench were listening to that. The Chancellor has a long list of issues that he needs to address to give some certainty, certainly if we are to see long-term investment in such things. I share my hon. Friend’s views: there is too much uncertainty with regard to a whole range of taxation and support initiatives from the Government. To be frank, it is jeopardising jobs as well as the future of our planet.

[Mr MacNeil]

We have been hearing this refrain that Britain is not on hold and that things are happening, but they are not. Britain is very much on hold. It is actually worse than that, as we see if we look at our neighbours. The hon. Gentleman might remember how, a number of years ago, this House mocked both Iceland and Ireland. It does not say much about them now when Ireland has treble the growth of the United Kingdom and Iceland double the growth. On a recent visit to the Central Bank of Iceland, I was told that the economy had grown so fast that it needed to be slowed down, and that it needed migrants to fill its jobs. These are economies that were once mocked in the United Kingdom and that are now very much laughing quietly to themselves as they speed into the sunset.

[John McDonnell]

I think the argument is sound. Until we obtain a fiscal rule that reflects the reality of our economy and our future, we will not return to the dynamism that is needed to restore growth and to ensure that we have wages and jobs that are beneficial to the community overall rather than the low paid and insecure work that we have at the moment.

Let me press on, because I do not want to strain your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is not just Members on these Benches who believe that the fiscal rules adopted by the Government are not fit for purpose. The former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), called for a £100 billion infrastructure fund to invest in schools and housing. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government called for tax cuts across the board and spoke about a Growing Britain fund, funded by more borrowing. The new Prime Minister repeated today the need to abandon the surplus target—perhaps to let it slip. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs spoke about the need for “prosperity, not austerity”. We welcome all those conversions to our line of argument, but none of this can be achieved within the confines of the charter as it now stands until the Office for Budget Responsibility advises otherwise.

We saw the consequences of the policies based on the old fiscal framework yesterday in a report from the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies. Let me just remind Members what the report said: the incomes of young people are still 7% below where they were before the financial crisis, and the incomes of those in their 30s, 40s and 50s have remained stagnant. Andy Haldane, the chief economist at the Bank of England, has spoken about a “lost decade” for earnings. McKinsey reports that four fifths of households have seen either no improvement or falling earnings. That is what we have to show for the year of fiscal rules from the former Chancellor. There is a consensus now across the country, from the TUC to the CBI, that investment is needed. Earlier this year the IMF told the Government that it had no objections on the grounds of fiscal responsibility to the Government undertaking more investment. The OECD agrees, but until the OBR gives permission to suspend the surplus rule, the Chancellor is constrained by his own rules.

The Government’s current plans for public sector net investment for the rest of this Parliament are for it to fall in each year, from £36.4 billion this year to £32.1 billion in 2019-20. Of course, we do not expect a full Budget now, but the least we need is a commitment to recognise the changed times that we are living in. The uncertainty about public investment comes on top of uncertainty about the structural funds for regions—which are set to lose up to £10 billion if we leave the EU—and further uncertainty for those reliant on projects funded by the European Investment Bank. I repeat that it is essential that, as a minimum, there is a guarantee from the Government soon to protect these funds in some form on an equivalent level.

There is an alternative; there has always been an alternative. Members of the Government Front-Bench team now see it, in part. Opposition Members have said so for some time. There is an alternative based upon investing in the future, growing the economy and allowing fiscal policy to work hand in hand with monetary policy. Professor Mariana Mazzucato has argued for the need for long-term, patient investment. We support that. It is true that the sale of ARM Holdings to SoftBank indicates that there is potential for new industries and innovation, but that potential needs long-term financing, which includes Government investment in infrastructure and research.

After the leave vote, more forecasters have cut their growth forecast. The IMF has joined them. Yesterday it revised down its prognosis for next year from 2.1% to 0.8%. With the current account deficit having hit record highs in the past year—in the most recent figures, it stands at 6.5%—our plan for the future cannot just be to fund that indefinitely with more overseas sales, such as that of ARM. We hope that the Chancellor will heed those who are calling for a much needed and eminently affordable change of direction.

It is a tragedy for this country that the Conservatives have only noticed that there is an alternative as a result of the leave vote, which I fear they helped to bring about. I announced on Monday that the Labour party supports a large programme of investment and will support the Government in a large programme of investment.

UK Economy

Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and John McDonnell

Wednesday 29th June 2016 Commons Chamber

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

I—[Interruption.] Scottish National party Members should calm down.

I beg to move,

That this House recognises the risks posed to the UK economy following the decision to leave the European Union; notes with concern the loss of the UK’s triple A credit rating, the potential output cut, potential job losses, risks to investment and the volatility in the equity and currency markets; and calls on the Government to bring forward measures to protect jobs and support businesses in the nations and regions in relation to the short, medium and long-term potential consequences of the referendum decision, and to address the current threats to community cohesion.

Let me welcome the Chancellor’s presence in the Chamber. I have been critical of his non-attendance of recent debates. I have to say that this was one day on which I thought he might be too busy elsewhere, but I welcome him to the debate. I also commend his Financial Secretary who, in excruciating pain from a bad back, has dealt competently and courteously with the Finance Bill over the last few days. In our roles, sometimes we all have to watch our backs.

Although this is an Opposition day debate, this is, frankly, no time for partisanship and party political game playing when the country faces such serious challenges. I suggest that the tone of this debate should be one of honest critique, but constructive engagement. Yes, we have to be honest about our assessment of the economy, but we also have to be constructive in our questioning and our proposals for the future. The country will expect us all to work together—not uncritically but co-operatively in times of unprecedented political and economic turmoil.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman talks about doing things critically and uncritically. One criticism I have—it seems to me to be a fact—is that before the referendum, the Chancellor promised an emergency Budget, but he seems to have been bluffing on that, because there is not going to be an emergency Budget. He had already bluffed once, because I think he bluffed about the pound in Scotland. How would the hon. Gentleman respond to that?

[John McDonnell]

To be frank, we need to move on now. I expressed my concerns about some of the over-exaggerated claims at the beginning of the campaign that turned people off. We now know, however, that many of the claims made on both sides are unfortunately coming true.

The leave vote in last week’s referendum has left us all with an immense series of tasks, and the economic situation is a major challenge for us all. Let me run through some of the headline items that we know about over these last few days: the UK’s triple A credit rating has been lost; the pound fell to a 31-year low; sterling markets have been in turmoil, as have stock markets here and abroad; the FTSE 100 index registered the biggest single-day fall since the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers in 2008; employers, most notably in the financial services, are already looking to relocate jobs, with a quarter of all those employers saying that they have introduced a hiring freeze; and shares in UK banks have fallen dramatically. These are not comments, but realities, and this is just an outline of the situation that now obtains.

Public Service Pensions Bill

Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and John McDonnell

Tuesday 4th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

Exactly, but I think it is across the piece. Whether or not we agreed with the last negotiations, or whether they were imposed or signed up to, at least some people felt there was some security for the future. People are becoming demoralised, which is why it is important that we insert in the Bill provisions for full consultation and agreement with organisations representing employees and for full openness and transparency. That is why new clause 3, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East, is critical. As has been said, at least in the private sector there is full display and transparency in what people sign up to, but there is no display or transparency in the public sector, particularly now that the Government have given themselves these powers.

[Mr MacNeil]

Given the comments about the police pension scheme, I am sure the hon. Gentleman understands the wish of the Scottish Police Federation that police pensions be controlled independently in Scotland. For England and Wales, however, does he feel that in future Governments should act more morally in relation to the terms of agreements that were made years before and under which police officers expect to retire, while also understanding, of course, that in Scotland they want clear of the system?

[John McDonnell]

I can fully understand the feelings of police officers in Scotland, as I can those of officers across England and Wales. People now just want safety and security in their pensions, which are theirs—they have paid for them and contributed to them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East said from the Front Bench, they are nothing more than deferred wages.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

I fully agree. What concerns me is that the Henry VIII powers in clause 3 are retrospective. This is another reason why the valuation process is so critical: if there is not full openness, transparency and consultation, in particular with employee representatives, the Government could in future use the valuation process to withdraw some of the benefits of the scheme or increase the contributions retrospectively. People can sign up to a scheme and pay into it for 20 years, but then be told that the benefits are different—although I think that will be tested in law, because I believe that legally we are talking about accrued rights that are protected under European legislation. The Government do not accept that argument, but it is a critical point. That is why I have tabled my amendments. The Government underestimate the anxiety and fears out there—particularly among trade unions, but also in other organisations—which arise from the lack of confidence in the future management of the schemes in the best interests of employees and members.

Let me turn to my amendments 7 and 8. The Government’s reform was meant to change the nature of the schemes, so that they would be based on career averages, exactly as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East said from the Front Bench. However, that is for a defined benefit scheme, not a defined contribution scheme, yet the Government have not committed themselves to that in the legislation. That is why I have tabled amendments 7 and 8, so that where a scheme is rearranged or staff are transferred into a new scheme, they must be defined benefit schemes, because that is what was promised in the negotiations with the trade unions. It is argued that we are binding future Governments, but all legislation is meant to bind future Governments, and any future Government could revisit this matter. At the same time, we need to try to give at least some security and ensure that the promises given by the present Government are adhered to. That is not much to ask, and it is all my amendments are designed to do.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman puts his finger exactly on the issue: insecurity for future pensioners. That, combined with ever-growing inequality in our society and the economic multipliers that we might see operating, means that people who are now living quite comfortably might be facing penury in their old age, due to the root insecurity at the base of this Bill, which he is doing a good job of exposing.

[John McDonnell]

In part, this is linked to other reforms that the Government are introducing—my hon. Friend the shadow Minister touched on this. Where changes have been made to the delivery of public services—some of this relates to outsourcing, reorganising government or delivering direct services through new Government agencies or public bodies—people understood that there would be a commitment from the Government that they would be transferred into the same scheme they are in now, which would be a defined benefit scheme. That is not in this Bill, which is why I have tabled my amendments.

The amendments put the onus on whatever bodies are established—non-departmental public bodies or whatever—to ensure that they offer a defined benefit scheme. If they do not, they are breaking the commitment that the Government gave. In addition, it will create a disincentive. When staff transfer, they transfer into the new scheme that will be established. Many people now in a defined benefit scheme—whatever its nature, whether final or average salary, although we are moving towards average salary—fear that if at some stage they move, they will be offered only a defined contribution scheme. That is why I want more certainty in the legislation. The amendments propose that whatever happens in the future, whatever restructuring the Government bring in and whatever new schemes are established, the Government will adhere to their promise that there must be a defined benefit scheme. I do not want to be cataclysmic about this, but if that does not happen, the legislation could undermine the whole provision of public service pensions. People could start to withdraw from the schemes because they did not have the certainty that they thought they had when they entered them.

The amendments might seem relatively minor, but they are absolutely key. If we do not bring the employees with us, if we do not consult their representatives, if we do not involve them in the valuation process and if we do not stand by the guarantee of a defined benefit scheme that they have been given, we will break down people’s confidence in the public sector pensions system overall, and we will certainly break down their confidence in this Government’s ability to adhere to their promises. This is not the 25-year guarantee of no further reform that we were given from the Dispatch Box only a matter of weeks ago.

Fuel Prices

Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and John McDonnell

Thursday 13th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman makes a great point, and a serious one, about rural places in mainland Scotland. Places such as Argyll, Caithness, Sutherland and Lochaber, which I must not forget as I worked there, would benefit from the extension and increase of the derogation.

It is interesting that, as the motion states, other countries, from the United States of America to Austria and Germany, are regulating. Ultimately, we will have to do the same in the United Kingdom before the economy is totally strangled. Whether it is the fault of the companies, the distributors, the speculators or the retailers, we need to get the issue sorted for the good of the economy. Indeed, retailers would be quite pleased to have greater regulation or transparency, especially as they are sometimes tied to long-term contracts with distributors, which makes it difficult for them to shop around and means that the price of fuel cannot be brought down in marginal areas.

Transparency might be the answer, but we must bear it in mind that in some areas and markets prices can go up if the seller is reluctant to give discounts to certain buyers. For that reason, regulation must be taken seriously before the economy is strangled. We cannot leave the foot pressing harder and harder on the jugular in the neck of the economy.

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

I apologise for intervening and then leaving, but I am going to meet a group of people with disabilities. This is not just about fuel in the tank but about meeting people’s heating costs. The heating costs of someone who is elderly or has disabilities are always higher. Now, yet again, many people are having to choose between heating and eating. That is why we need to control these prices.

[Mr MacNeil]

My constituency has the highest rate of fuel poverty in the UK, so I know that the hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct, and I am grateful for his intervention. People are having to make these choices when they get up on a winter’s day, especially the elderly and vulnerable.

This is a poll tax on jobs and on economic activity. The TaxPayers Alliance has produced work that shows that in many places, of £30 paid at the till, £18 goes in tax. That is in line with my own research. In the case of a litre costing £1.50, 58p is tax and 28p is VAT. A total of 83p was paid in tax, but it will be more, and my constituency has the highest tax per litre in the UK.

We must look at what is happening in the supply chain when fuel goes from the refinery to the distributors and then leaves the depot and arrives at the retail forecourts. The best estimate that I can work out from rumours is that in my area, having left the depots, it is going to retailers at about £1.20 or £1.25 per litre excluding VAT. With VAT, it comes to about £1.50, and the rest is the retailer’s margin, which is usually 5p, 6p or 7p. My figures are approximate but they give an idea of what is going on. I can best ascertain that the pre-tax cost of a litre is about 65p.

The Government have promised to bring in a fuel duty stabiliser, and I encourage them to do so. That is what the Scottish National party called it; they could call it a fair fuel regulator, or whatever. That would control spikes in fuel prices, alleviating uncertainty and helping businesses to plan in an uncertain world.

High fuel prices hit the poorest most, and they hit jobs and families. They hit rural constituencies and island constituencies. We cannot constantly come back to this Chamber with the same complaints year after year, Government after Government. I could not tell the House how many speeches I have made about this, but there have been many over the past seven years. There has been some progress in recent years with the rural fuel derogation, and I am thankful for that, but more has to be done. It is the job of Parliament and of Government to solve the country’s problems. We need regulation and we need to bring in the fair fuel stabiliser for the hard-pressed motorists, workers and families of this country.