Devolution and Growth across Britain

Debate between Jonathan Edwards and Chuka Umunna

Wednesday 3rd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Umunna]

I certainly want more councils to follow Manchester’s example. I think that it is a good thing, so I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Umunna]

I will make a little progress if I may, but I may come back to the hon. Gentleman later.

What of the Government’s proposals in the Queen’s Speech that we are debating? We are told that the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill will provide the legislative framework necessary to deliver the Greater Manchester deal and other future deals in large cities in England that choose to have elected mayors, as my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) mentioned, and in other places. Shortly before the general election, devolution deals were announced in relation to Sheffield and West Yorkshire. In addition to Manchester, we were told that the Government will pilot allowing councils in Cambridgeshire and Cheshire to retain 100% of the growth in business rate revenue so that they can reap the benefit of decisions to boost growth locally.

To pick up my hon. Friend’s point, however, why limit these arrangements to those areas? Why not give every region the opportunity to reap the benefits of the decisions they make to boost growth locally through such deals and through the devolution of business rates? Although I am a big fan, what about areas which, as she said, choose not to have elected mayors? Why should they be denied the benefit of greater local freedoms? Combined authorities, with or without a mayor, can provide a useful vehicle through which to do all this, but one important point for the Government to consider as they proceed with their legislation is this: what about areas which do not have or do not desire a combined authority, and how will they get more powers? My criticism of what has been proposed—I accept that we need to see the Bill—is that it does not seem to go far enough and is rather piecemeal. The Government need to find a way of ensuring that all areas can enjoy greater autonomy.

The Government say that their Scotland Bill aims to deliver in full the Smith commission agreement, to which the five main Scottish political parties signed up in November 2014. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that the vow—a promise made and a promise to be delivered —made on the eve of last year’s referendum is delivered in full to make the Scottish Parliament one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world. As we set out in our manifesto, we will work to amend the Bill to give the Scottish Parliament the final say on social security and the power to top up UK benefits. This settlement must recognise the strength and security offered by being part of the UK, which means retaining the pooling and sharing of resources that flow from the Barnett formula. It is imperative that that is protected and, for the sake of the Scottish economy and public services, one hopes that the SNP’s economically illiterate plans for full fiscal autonomy are dropped. The worst-case scenario for Scotland would be the hon. Members of the SNP in this House pressing for full fiscal autonomy and the Tory Government delivering it.

[Jonathan Edwards]

The Labour amendment equates fair funding with the so-called Barnett floor, yet the hon. Gentleman has just said that he is committed to the Barnett formula for Scotland. If Wales had the same level of investment as Scotland, it would be worth an extra £1.4 billion a year. Would that not be fair funding? If that were in the Labour amendment, I would be more than happy to march through the Lobby with him. As it is, we cannot.

[Mr Umunna]

Perhaps I will help the hon. Gentleman shortly, because I am coming straight on to Wales.

We are told that the Wales Bill will deliver a clearer, more stable devolution settlement for Wales and devolve important new powers to the National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Government. We understand that a funding floor is to be introduced to protect Welsh relative funding and provide certainty for the Welsh Government in planning for the future. We support measures to put Welsh devolution on a stronger statutory basis, as is the case with Scotland. We agree with taking forward proposals from the Silk commission and extending the power that the people of Wales have over their transport, elections and energy.

To come to the point made by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), let me be clear that Wales must not be unfairly disadvantaged by the Barnett formula. The Conservative-led coalition cut the Welsh budget by £1.5 billion. This Conservative Government must ensure that there is a fair funding settlement for Wales by introducing a funding floor. That funding floor should not be contingent on an income tax referendum.

The Queen’s Speech refers to legislation to implement the Stormont House agreement in Northern Ireland. This issue was raised in Prime Minister’s questions. The legislation will provide the architecture to deal with the past, institutional reform at Stormont and certain economic measures, including the devolution of corporation tax. In view of the concerning escalation of the dispute over welfare reform, we urge the Government to do all in their power to work with the Northern Ireland parties and, where appropriate, the Irish Government to avert this serious threat to political and economic stability in Northern Ireland.

Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Debate between Jonathan Edwards and Chuka Umunna

Wednesday 16th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Umunna]

I will give way shortly.

The Government’s answer is simply not good enough. Do they really think that, on its own, that will stop the exploitative use of such arrangements?

As well as ensuring that the terms and conditions of employees on zero-hours were made clearer and that they were free to work for other employers, we would give employees the right to demand regular contracts if they were, in practice, working regular hours for a certain period, with an automatic right to a fixed-hours contract after a year. We would also ensure that employees on zero-hours contracts were not obliged to make themselves available outside contracted hours, and that they had a right to compensation if shifts were cancelled at short notice. That is what the Government should be doing. If they did what we are proposing to do, they would be able to clamp down on these exploitative practices.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am heartened by some of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but can he explain why, during recent deliberations in the Welsh Assembly on the Bill that is now the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014, the Labour Government voted down my party’s proposals to ban zero-hours contracts in the social care sector in Wales?

[Mr Umunna]

We, as a party, have made it very clear that we want to end the exploitative use of zero-hours contracts.

Banking Reform

Debate between Jonathan Edwards and Chuka Umunna

Monday 29th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) on initiating this important debate. I welcome the fact that we are conducting it in a reasonably non-partisan way. I have listened with interest to the comments of my fellow Treasury Committee members, and the last three contributors in particular. Although I do not agree with everything that has been said, there is much common ground.

My general approach is that we should not set out to destroy the City. It makes a valuable contribution to our economy, not least to the tax take of the Exchequer. I spent much of my legal career working there and I know that a number of other Members present also worked there for some time. The important thing is that we reform the City so that it is run in the interests of all the British people, not in the interests of a few people in the square mile, as often seems to happen. Above all, let us reform it so that never again do any of our constituents have to pick up the tab for the mess in the sector.

We should be clear. All major political parties and Governments across the world bear responsibility for allowing what happened to develop. Let us face it: the consensus pre-crash was for a light-touch model of regulation. However, we should not forget—this is where I differ from some other Members—that it was ultimately the bankers who were to blame. Now we have to resolve what happened.

I disagree with the motion in that it suggests that nothing much has happened. I am glad to hear that other Members disagree with that. Let us look back to the G20 in April 2009 and recall what was achieved there, following the leadership demonstrated by the former Prime Minister. I remember him being ridiculed as he went around the world trying to galvanise consensus on a set of outcomes, but the summit produced outcomes that have been built upon. Three come to mind. First, the leaders resolved to establish the Financial Stability Board, the successor to the Financial Stability Forum, and as a consequence the world has a standing body of Finance Ministers, regulators and central bankers, which seeks to provide early warnings of financial risks and has a greater mandate to promote financial stability globally.

Secondly, the leaders who attended the summit took concerted action to improve the quality and quantity of capital in the banking system, and I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), one of my Treasury Committee colleagues, because what came out of it—with the FSB and the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision working together —helped to produce more stringent capital adequacy requirements and the minimum equity requirement will go up to 7%. Perhaps it is regrettable that that will not happen until 2019, and perhaps it could be sped up, but it has definitely made a difference.

Thirdly, the leaders resolved to endorse and implement new principles on remuneration, and, as a result, in the March Budget the former Government put in place the apparatus within which a remuneration disclosure scheme could be enacted.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if there is greater transparency on bonuses, the threatened diaspora of bankers will be nothing more than hot air?

[Mr Umunna]

The apparatus would help to introduce greater transparency on bonuses, because if we want to do something about reckless remuneration we need to know about it. I speak to many people in the City, and, although some of course disagree with the measure, many accept that it needs to be introduced. Action was taken, but some measures are still outstanding.