Ed Miliband
MP for Doncaster North · Labour · United Kingdom
“Gentleman raises the issue of arms, and I talked in my statement about the double lock. I want to take on his point on the F-35s. To be clear with the House, we stopped providing direct parts to Israel’s F-35 programme in October 2024, under my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) when he was Foreign Secretary.”
“I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for his response. It is our first time opposite each other at the Dispatch Box, so let me congratulate him on his appointment—he has a proud record in Parliament as Security Minister and Chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, and brings great expertise to this House.”
“Israel has the right not to live in fear of vile terrorism, and the Israeli state has the right to protect its people and defend its territory, but that cannot justify what has happened in Gaza. Over 70,000 people have been killed, at least 20,000 of them children—20,000.”
“Our extension of the global human rights sanctions regime will enable us to target those responsible for violations of international humanitarian law, whether in Gaza or anywhere else in the world.”
“The right hon. Gentleman has an honourable record on this issue. I will quickly clip through his questions, knowing the constraints on time, Madam Speaker. I agree with him on the World Central Kitchen. It is appalling that the investigation has been closed down.”
“Iran must never have a nuclear weapon, so we are also acting this week, alongside our allies, to report Iran to the UN Security Council for its nuclear violations, and I can announce today that we are reimposing major economic sanctions on Iran in line with the European Union and the United States.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,382 lines we hold for Ed Miliband, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 29 of 48.
“Just like this Government, fracking is a dangerous, extreme idea that the British people do not support, and I appeal to all Members of the House, particularly Conservative Members, to have the courage of their convictions. Today is a day when they can put their constituents before their party and vote to give this House the decision on a fracking ban. It is time to consign fracking to the dustbin of history.”
“Then, at the 11th hour, one galaxy brain says that the way to force the vote through is to make it a vote on not just one of the most unpopular causes in the country—fracking—but the most unpopular cause in the country: the current Prime Minister. We might call it the “frack me or sack me” strategy. In normal times, such an idiotic idea would have been dismissed out of hand, but these are not normal times. The Government see this as their leaky life raft, but I say to the House and to Conservative Members that they all know the Prime Minister will be gone in a matter of weeks, if not days, if not hours, and they know fracking will go with her, so why defend the indefensible? Why not be on the right side of history and their constituents?”
“We now discover, however, that that is not all they will be voting for tonight, because the genius minds of the Government Whips Office are now seeking to turn a vote on this important issue into a vote of confidence in the current Prime Minister. Let us picture the scene: the Government Whips are confronted with a vote on fracking, one of the least popular causes in the country, with the Government falling apart around them. They could decide to retreat, but that would be yet another U-turn. They could concede a vote of this House on the fracking ban, but they would lose and fracking would be dead.”
“We are voting on our proposal to bring in a Bill to ban fracking. I say to the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a large amount of respect, that we are not going to get a vote on the principle of fracking, because the Business Secretary has said that. I know that the hon. Gentleman is against fracking, so this is his chance to stand up for his constituents and say no to fracking. I will say more about the issue of consent and the Government’s amendment, and I will say something to the House as a whole and to Conservative Back Benchers, which goes to the hon. Gentleman’s point. They should not fall for the Government’s weasel words in this debate. The way to stop fracking is to vote for our motion. If they do not, their constituents will know that they had the chance to stop fracking and refused to do so.”
“For the guidance of the House, the Minister said something very important from the Dispatch Box: he said that this is not a confidence motion. I think Conservative Members want to know, because if he confirms that statement, they can vote for our motion in the safe knowledge that they can be confident in the current Prime Minister. Will he confirm that?”
“This is a very important point: that will leave billions of pounds of extraordinary profits with the companies, and it means that the British people will be forced to foot billions more of the bill for energy price support. If having a windfall tax is the right thing to do, why not have it from the date of the intervention in September? I am very happy to give way to the right hon. Gentleman so he can explain why he is not doing that.”
“Companies and the public have no idea from the Bill about the size of the levy, how much it will raise and how there will be fairness with the fossil fuel windfall tax that the previous Chancellor announced —to remind the House, that was four Chancellors ago, in May this year. We will probe two issues that go to the question of whether we will raise sufficient resources from the windfall tax, or “surrogate windfall tax”, in the Bill. First, according to their press release, the Government will start the windfall tax on electricity generators only in 2023. Those months of delay matter, because it will mean billions in extraordinary profits being left— [ Interruption. ] I do not know why the Secretary of State is shaking his head.”
“Payments on the basis of windfalls received to lower the cost of electricity for consumers, or to meet expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State—it sounds like a windfall tax. It works like a windfall tax. It talks like a windfall tax. It is a windfall tax. I want to hear during this debate that the Government will definitely use the powers to have a windfall tax that are in clause 16. That matters, because while we set out a clear plan for a windfall tax, the truth is that the Government, having resisted a windfall tax tooth and nail, have now taken the broadest and most ill-defined powers imaginable.”
“Our argument five weeks ago, when the Government announced their energy price guarantee, was that they should do everything they could to find some of the money for this intervention from the energy companies that are making enormous profits. Anyone who heard the Business Secretary’s dulcet tones on the radio last week will have heard him say that there is no windfall tax in the Bill. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) described it as a “surrogate windfall tax”, which is a new invention. However, page 3 of the Bill’s explanatory notes states: “The Bill aims to do the following…Require certain generators currently receiving supernormal revenues to make a payment to a third party…for purposes of lowering the cost of electricity for consumers, or to meet expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State”.”
“That even takes account of the £400. I worry about off-grid households, which we will talk about in Committee. I understand the basis of the Secretary of State’s argument. Our costed package provided £1,000 to help off-grid households. The Bill provides just a tenth of the support, and even with the Government’s measures, the University of York estimates that more than 10 million families will be in fuel poverty, so we will want to debate those issues during the Bill’s passage. I will focus my remarks on the second set of issues relating to the way that funding for the Bill is provided, which is important.”
“The Prime Minister went on and on about her decisive action of a two-year guarantee. She even derided the Opposition’s approach of a six-month freeze, seeking to spread to fear about what would happen in March, and now the Government have adopted our proposal. Never mind a vision; never mind a plan for the years ahead—this Government cannot even give us a plan for the coming week. They are truly in office but not in power. This matters, because families and businesses need to be able to plan. I want to talk about the substantive action in the Bill and the way that the revenue to pay for it is raised, because there are important issues for the House. On the substantive action, there is a contrast with our six-month package. That was a real freeze, not a rise in bills, and £129 for millions of families across the country is significant.”
“Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will try to be as brief as I can to let as many people as possible speak in this debate. Let me start by saying that Labour called for support for families and businesses in August through an energy price freeze, so we will support the passage of the Bill. I thank the Secretary of State for the conversations we have had on the Bill. This is an incredibly serious issue for families and businesses across the country. I have to say, before I get into the detail, what a shambles this Government are. We are debating what they describe as their landmark Bill for a two-year price guarantee. It was published only last Wednesday and it has already been shredded by the Chancellor this morning. Last Wednesday, Members were in the House for Prime Minister’s questions.”
“The truth is that, day by day, they are showing that they are out of ideas, out of time, and now, in the national interest, they should be out of power, too.”
“If the Business Secretary wants to convince people that he understands the stakes and what is necessary to get out of this crisis, he needs to make a proper sprint for green energy. The other thing that the Business Secretary needs to do—we will again discuss this during the passage of the Bill, and I think he may agree with this—is set a timetable for the proper de-linking of electricity and gas prices. We suggest that we should set a two-year timetable in the Bill for that to happen. Let me end by saying that the Bill is necessary, because we need support to be put on the statute book, but the truth about the Government is that they are lurching from U-turn to U-turn, and they cannot provide the country with the strategic direction that it needs to get out of the crisis.”
“Those lessons are not some extreme fringe idea that fracking, which will not lower bills, is somehow the answer to the problems that we face. The answer is a clean sprint for clean energy—for solar, wind, nuclear as part of that and energy efficiency all together. The other day, the Secretary of State wrote an article in The Guardian, in which he said, “Dear Guardian reader”: “I can assure Guardian readers that I am not a ‘green energy sceptic’.” Let him prove it. He is for fracking, which will not lower bills and is dangerous. His colleague, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, is seeking to block solar energy worth 34 GW—the equivalent of 10 nuclear power stations. That is not some whim of the DEFRA Secretary, but an instruction from the Prime Minister, who said that she does not like the look of solar panels.”
“That means that for every pound invested in oil and gas and fracking, companies get 91p back. But to be clear: that is not available to renewables, nuclear or other zero-carbon technology. That is an absurd tilting of the playing field towards fossil fuels and against investments in cheap, home-grown, clean power, and that is absolutely indefensible. It will not reduce bills. We will want to use the Bill as best we can, given the constraints of its scope, to debate the merits of that provision. I urge the House to support attempts to eliminate that preposterous loophole. In the time I have left, let me deal with the wider questions about the Bill. We will continue to be in this position unless we learn the proper lessons from this crisis.”
“That would mean that there are no windfalls, so why is the Secretary of State having a special payment made by the energy companies anyway? That makes no sense at all. We will definitely want to probe that during the debate. How can it possibly all have been sold forward, as he says? So he is saying that the energy companies are currently making no windfalls. That does rather prompt the question: why are they going to have to make special payments, if it has all been sold forward and they are making no windfall profits? Secondly, I want to talk about the question of the level playing field in what is happening to the fossil fuel companies and to the electricity generators. The previous Chancellor but one—I think that is right—introduced a super-deduction for fossil fuel companies as part of his windfall tax.”
“I acknowledge the words of the Secretary of State. This is important legislation to get onto the statute book. I will make one point: there are many issues still to be resolved in secondary legislation, and I hope and expect—I know from our conversations that he will take this seriously—that there will be co-operation on those issues.”
“(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to make a statement regarding the lifting of the moratorium on shale gas extraction.”
“For communities in every part of our country, today shows that they can never trust a word this Government say again, and he has shown he is willing to break his promises to support dangerous fringe ideas that put the interests of fossil fuel companies above those of the British people.”
“Let me tell the Conservatives that we will hang this broken promise round their necks in every part of the country between now and the next general election. The Conservative manifesto also said: “Having listened to local communities, we have ruled out changes to the planning system.” Does the Secretary of State stand by that promise, and how will he abide by the Prime Minister’s commitment to local consent? The truth is that he does not understand that we cannot escape a fossil fuels crisis by doubling down on fossil fuels. Renewables are today nine times cheaper than gas. The only way to cut energy bills and have energy security is with zero-carbon home-grown power, including onshore wind and solar, which his wing of the Conservative party hates and he continues to block.”
“The 2019 manifesto, on which the Secretary of State and every Conservative Member stood, said: “We will not support fracking unless the science shows categorically that it can be done safely.” They are lifting the ban, but they cannot supply the evidence, and the British Geological Survey report published today certainly does not do it. So in the absence of the evidence, his approach is to change the safety limits. He says in his written statement laid before this House that “tolerating a higher degree of risk and disturbance appears to us to be in the national interest”. I look forward to him and his colleagues explaining his charter for earthquakes to the people of Lancashire, Yorkshire, the midlands, Sussex, Dorset and, indeed, Somerset who will be part of his dangerous experiment.”
“This is obviously a case of “the dog ate my homework”, and it is hardly surprising. Let us start by taking the Secretary of State’s excuse for lifting the fracking ban—that it will make a difference to the energy bills crisis. It will not, because gas is sold on the international market. The current Chancellor said so in February of this year: “No amount of shale gas…would be enough to lower the European price” of gas. In an article published yesterday, even the founder of Cuadrilla said that the Secretary of State is wrong. First, why does he not admit the truth that anyone who knows anything about this subject says his claim that fracking will cut bills is nonsense? Next, let us come to safety.”
“I say to the House that we have lost an extraordinary monarch who had an extraordinary and distinguished reign over seven decades. She is followed by someone who I know will live up to all the hopes of our country, and who will bring that same sense of unity, compassion and public service. Long live the King.”
“When I was Climate Change Secretary, I always thought of him as an extraordinary national asset on the issue, and he remains so. But he is not just a fighter for big causes; he is also someone—he has inherited this from his mother—of extraordinary kindness, generosity and compassion. We see it in his work to heal social divisions in our country, but I have also seen it in my constituency, which was hit by floods in 2007 and 2019. On both occasions, including on the first, when part of my constituency was still under water, he came to see my constituents, to talk to them and to be with them—including, on the second occasion, just before Christmas—because he knew that his presence, at that time of anguish, grief and anxiety, would make an enormous difference to my constituents, and indeed it did.”
“I go back to a time in 2008, when I had recently been appointed as Secretary of State for Climate Change and I went to my first ever Privy Council meeting. Her Majesty was reading out laws that were being passed. As she did so, she paused for a moment, because she was having trouble reading, and she said, “Yes, it’s these new long-life lightbulbs that we have introduced.” She fixed me with a beady gaze and a twinkle in her eye, and I smiled. That was the sense of humour that she showed. Her Majesty was an extraordinary monarch, but I also want to say a word about King Charles III. Again, I speak on behalf of my constituents. He has been an extraordinary warrior on the issue of the environment, long before it was fashionable.”
“Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who is not in his place, talked about his experience when he was deposed as Leader of the Opposition. I was deposed by the British people rather than my party, but as my career nosedived my wife’s took off; in 2019, she became a High Court judge and a dame. We were therefore both invited to the palace to meet Her Majesty. As we saw each other, Her Majesty fixed me with her gaze and said, “Oh, it’s you. What are you doing here?”, knowing full well why I was there, and we had a wonderful conversation. There she was at 93, still full of vim, vigour and humour. There is a lesson for us all in the kindness she showed to me and to other Members of the House. Thirdly, I want to say something about her sense of humour.”
“One thing that has come through so much since Her Majesty’s passing last night is the phrase “public service.” I want to reflect on some extraordinary qualities that she showed in terms of public service, including, first of all, her ability to bring people together and unify our country. I was at the state banquet in 2014 for the President of Ireland—a state banquet attended by the late Martin McGuinness. It showed extraordinary selflessness, courage and an ability to heal that Her Majesty invited Martin McGuinness, given the history of what happened to Lord Mountbatten, but that was the person that she was; her duty to our country and to bring people together came first. Secondly, she taught us about kindness in leadership. The right hon.”
“I rise at a time of great sadness for our country. I do so on behalf of my constituents in Doncaster North, although I know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I also speak for you and your constituents in Doncaster Central, and those right across Doncaster. The House has been at its best today, with some wonderful speeches and memories of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth. I was Leader of the Opposition, as the House will know. It is noted that the Queen experienced 15 Prime Ministers. I think we have lost count of how many Leaders of the Opposition she went through, which perhaps says something about Leaders of the Opposition, but it is in that spirit of my experience that I want to talk briefly to the House.”
“Next, we have heard the argument that a windfall tax cannot raise extra money beyond what the former Chancellor announced. Let us dispose of that argument, too. I gather that there is a dispute about the figure of £170 billion in excess profits. The current Chancellor is not here, but I say to the Prime Minister: publish the Treasury’s estimate of excess profits. If it is not £170 billion—we have it on good authority that it is—the estimates should be published so that we can all see them for ourselves.”
“Let us dispose of the argument that this issue is somehow not about higher taxes; in the end, this intervention will have to be paid for by the British people in higher taxes. So the question is not whether we are going to tax to pay for it, but whom we are going to tax. Let us take the arguments we have heard in this debate against the windfall tax and take them apart one by one. First, we have the argument that a windfall tax will reduce investment. Is there any truth to that? As my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition said in his eloquent speech, the BP boss says that it will not have an effect on investment; when asked what investments it would affect, he said, “None of them.” So even BP does not believe the argument the Prime Minister is mounting in defence of BP.”
“I am glad that she has admitted she was wrong about that, because even though there have been disagreements, we have heard throughout this debate—I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken—agreement about the scale of the emergency facing families. That is why we spent the summer fighting for the energy price freeze. However, the devil will be in the detail and people will want to see the small print. The problem is that bills still seem to be rising by at least £129 a year. The even bigger problem, and the fundamental issue in this debate, has been who pays. The right hon. Lady has been clear that she is against a windfall tax. We know the effects of that: it means that all the costs are loaded on to the British people.”
“Before I address the issues in this debate, I send my best wishes to Her Majesty the Queen and her family. I know that all our thoughts, and the thoughts of the country, are with them at this time. There are two central questions at the heart of this debate: have the Government responded to the emergency that we face in a way that is fair, and do they recognise the fundamental truth that the only way to end this crisis in the long term is to get off fossil fuels? I am afraid that, on today’s evidence, the answer to both questions is no. Let me start by discussing the plan unveiled by the Prime Minister earlier. Labour led the way on the energy price freeze. We called for it, despite doubts, including from the Prime Minister.”
“There is nothing more anti-business than scaring off investors in renewables with climate denial. In conclusion, here is the truth about this new Government, only two days in. They have revealed their true colours. We face a social and economic emergency. In such an emergency, what matters is who you stand up for, who shoulders the burden and the choices you make. The Government have chosen to stand up for the oil and gas companies, not the British people, who will pay for this action in the long-term. The Government cannot answer the challenges of energy security. They cannot answer the challenges of energy bills. They cannot answer the challenges of the climate crisis. And they have the wrong priorities for Britain.”
“We have worked across parties over two decades to secure it and there is a heavy responsibility on the Business Secretary to be part of maintaining that consensus, not destroying it. The problem for the Business Secretary, and the reason he faces that challenge, is that this problem is not just about the climate crisis, because not taking action on green energy is a recipe for higher bills. The ban on onshore wind is driving bills higher and gas imports higher, and it is terrible for the climate. The blocking of solar, which the Prime Minister supports, is driving bills higher and gas imports higher, and it is terrible for the climate. The refusal to act on energy efficiency is driving bills higher and gas imports higher, and it is terrible for the climate.”
“I have been part of the work done on building a cross-party consensus on climate for getting on for 20 years in this House, and we have to look at some of what he has said about climate. He has questioned the modelling and whether there is anything we can do about the climate crisis. In 2017, he said: “If we were to take action now, to try and stop man-made global warming, it would have no effect for hundreds or thousands of years”. He went on to say that the cost of climate action is “probably unaffordable”. I quote those words because this is flirtation with climate denial. Never in the past 20 years have we heard these words from someone in charge of tackling the climate crisis, and we should not normalise it. The bipartisan consensus on climate change has been hard won.”
“and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition quoted the words of the new Chancellor that fracking would make no difference to prices and would take years to come on stream. I do not know where the Prime Minister got the six months she mentioned in her statement, but the Chancellor was saying only a few months ago that it would take 10 years to get anything out of the ground on fracking. This is where I come to the Business Secretary, whom I congratulate. He and I have known each other a long time and we have had a good personal relationship—perhaps we can form an unlikely alliance on the issues that we face. I want to make a serious point to him about some of what he has said in the past, because it relates to these issues. He has said a number of things about climate.”
“Let us never, ever hear again lectures from the Conservative party on fiscal responsibility after the decisions it is making today. That brings me to the longer term. Let us face facts: the only way out of this crisis is to get off fossil fuels. I can do no better than quote the words of Lord Deben this week. He said that “if you want to deal with climate change and you want to deal with the cost of living crisis and oil and gas prices, you have to do the same things. Renewable energy and energy efficiency, they are the answers.” I would add nuclear to that, but the central point is that solar and wind energy are nine times cheaper than gas. We cannot solve the fossil fuel crisis by doubling down on fossil fuels, but that is what the Government have done today with this announcement on fracking. My right hon.”
“That is the effect of her argument. The argument I am making is not one simply made by leftie suspects such as me: Margaret Thatcher, her heroine, imposed a windfall tax in 1981; George Osborne, whom the Prime Minister worked for, imposed one in 2011; and the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), her very close friend —[Interruption.] I think she is disavowing George Osborne, but I can understand that. As I was saying, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip imposed a windfall tax two months ago. So the Prime Minister is flying in the face of logic, fairness and common sense, and is engaging in tens of billions of pounds of borrowing that she does not need to engage in.”
“In my experience of Tory leaders, it is worth their while to stay on the right side of him. Mr Stelzer wrote: “Now is the time for a windfall profits tax”. He continued: “People who believe in capitalism believe that private sector companies should be rewarded for taking risks...not be rewarded for happening to be around when some disruption drives up prices, producing windfalls.” In this case, we are talking about the barbaric invasion of Ukraine. What principle is the Prime Minister defending here? What is the hill on which she stands? Is the principle she really wishes to defend that oil and gas companies should pocket any scale of profits, however bad the political instability; that however large the crisis and however gigantic the windfall, taxation must not change; and that the British people must take the strain?”
“The alternative that the Government appear to have adopted is to have a voluntary agreement whereby companies decide to opt in to reduce prices. I say to the House that that is a terrible proposal—it came originally from Energy UK—because in exchange for giving up some profits now, the deal will lock in higher prices over the next 15 years. This is not a good deal for consumers. A chart published by Energy UK—I am a nerd, so I read these charts—precisely sets out the fact that consumers will pay through the nose over the 15 years ahead. The third and final argument we have heard in this debate, and indeed from the Prime Minister, is that a windfall tax is somehow unfair to business. Let me take advantage of her being present to recommend that she reads an article by Mr Irwin Stelzer, a long-time confidant of Rupert Murdoch.”
“I am not going to give way, because I have little time for the wind-up. In any case, we know that tens of billions could be raised. First, there are significant resources from the windfall tax on the oil and gas companies, including through abolishing the absurd £5 billion loophole proposed by the Chancellor. Next, we come to the electricity generators. We need to de-link the price of gas and electricity, but that will not happen for a number of years. In the meantime, these companies are making enormous profits. Onward, a conservative think-tank, said this week that up to £10 billion a year can be raised, while the Tony Blair Institute gave a figure of £14 billion. We could even have a cross-party consensus on this. Why would we leave this money in their pockets when it could help to pay for the action on energy?”
“In the last two days, we have seen that the climate emergency is here and now, with wildfires raging across our country, tracks and runways melting, schools closing and the government under-prepared, and yet some people aspiring to the highest office in the land have suggested that tackling the climate crisis is a luxury that can be delayed—an indulgence, a niche project. Such people would put the safety of our citizens at risk. They are deeply irresponsible and they are economically illiterate. Does the President of COP26 agree that, given the demonstrable threat that we so obviously face, there is no place in serious political parties for such dangerous folly?”
“Will the President of COP26 now repudiate that position and condemn it for the dangerous nonsense that it is?”
“The President of COP26 was so appalled by his own party’s leadership contest that he threatened to resign, and it is no wonder. He says that all the candidates are committed to the net zero agenda, but only this morning the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), the frontrunner in the leadership race, said that he would double down on the onshore wind ban because of the “distress and disruption” that onshore wind causes. What is causing distress is the worst cost of living crisis in a generation. What is causing disruption is the most extreme weather in our country’s history. Onshore wind is a vital tool in tackling these crises, but the bizarre state of the Tory party means that the former Chancellor panders to the fanatics and sides with the sceptics.”
“It has been reported that the COP26 President is in the running to become the executive secretary of climate at the UN. I wish him well, because he would do an excellent job in that post. Part of the reason he won respect at COP26 was for his commitment to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, yet here at home the Chancellor has created a massive loophole in the windfall tax to give away at least £4 billion of public money in new incentives for new oil and gas projects. Can the COP26 President tell us whether he was consulted on that plan? How much does he estimate that it will drive up emissions? Is it not totally at odds with the agreement on fossil fuels that he worked so hard to secure in Glasgow?”
“Maybe the COP26 President has one eye on the UN, because that did not sound like a wholehearted endorsement of the Chancellor’s policy, and he is right to think that the Chancellor’s policy does not make any sense. The money will either go to oil and gas projects that would have happened anyway, or incentivise new projects that will make no difference to consumer bills, take years to come to fruition and drive a coach and horses through our climate commitments. What is more, this policy excludes investments in renewables, which are the quickest, cheapest and cleanest form of power. Does that not reveal the truth that on climate, he says one thing on the world stage and the rest of the Government do another here at home? Is it not totally understandable that he wants to jump off the sinking ship?”
“We are now set for the highest level of inflation for 40 years. The plan is not working; it is failing.”
“Then in October he delivered the Budget. Wholesale energy prices were rocketing and the warning signals were flashing, but the Chancellor did nothing. He should re-read that Budget speech, because I think it would make even him wince. It is a model of complacency. He had drunk his own Kool-Aid. He told the country back then that “wages are rising”, that we have “growth up” and that on inflation we have “a Government...ready and willing to act” —[ Official Report , 27 October 2021; Vol. 702, c. 275.] He said that the “plan is working”. Where are we now? On wages, the Office for Budget Responsibility is this year forecasting the biggest fall in living standards for 45 years. Growth turned negative in March, with the Bank of England suggesting that the economy is going to shrink through the winter.”
“This is not just about families out of work; it is about families in work too. This is a social emergency and it is also a looming economic threat, depriving our economy of the spending power it needs. The question at the heart of this debate is whether this Gracious Speech, this Government and, yes, this Chancellor are up to the challenge this emergency represents. The Chancellor wants us to believe that his measures in response are the best we can do, but they are not—not by a long shot. The cost of living crisis is driven most of all by what is happening to energy bills, so let us look at the three chances he has had in the past seven months to act on energy bills. Last August, nine months ago, the first energy price rise was announced—this was a £139 increase in the price cap. So way back then he knew what was happening.”