Stella Creasy MP: speeches

Speeches

• 4 Sept 2024 · Budget Responsibility Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Yes. But in that time, many of us have had persistent concerns, and one of mine has always been the private finance initiative. The Government are asking all of us to make and support some very tough decisions because of the economic mess that the country now finds itself in. My view is that we must look at all outgoings in that process. If somebody came to a constituency surgery because they had multiple outstanding loans and could not pay their rent, we would look at the debts that they held. That is the challenge with private finance: it is the legal loan-sharking of the public sector. Amendments 6 and 7 are about the process of getting a grip on our debts and ensuring that we learn from the damage that private finance has done. Let us be clear: nobody can absolve themselves from private finance. Governments of all persuasions have sought to use that process—the ability to put only the repayments on the books, rather than the substantial cost of borrowing. That started under John Major; yes, there were multiple PFIs under the previous Labour Government; and indeed, the previous Conservative Government continued to use private finance until 2018. That is why, as of February this year, there are still 700 PFI schemes representing a capital value of £57 billion, but for which we will pay back £151 billion in the years ahead. We are asking pensioners to pay more for heating their homes, but we should be asking how we can pay less for the private finance debts that we have built up. Private finance was about being able to build things such as schools and hospitals. Anybody who has an outstanding PFI debt in their constituency, or a school or hospital that urgently needs rebuilding, such as Whipps Cross hospital in my constituency, understands the importance of being able to access private finance. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not saying through my amendments that we should never work with the private sector; I am saying that PFI was a catastrophically bad deal and that, cumulatively, it would meet the legislation’s targets of 1% of GDP, so it is a fiscally significant policy. My amendments are about trying to understand how we will deal with cumulative debt and cumulatively fiscally significant policies.

• 2 Sept 2024 · Violent Disorder · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the strong leadership that the Home Secretary has shown on this. The truth is that these events did not happen in a vacuum. That is why, after three days of distress and panic in Walthamstow because somebody published a list suggesting that thugs were going to come to our community, thousands of people took to our streets. They stood with members of our local mosques and churches, holding hands with them to keep them safe. They helped businesses to board up their properties. We even had knitters against Nazis. As much as we are grateful for that solidarity, we in Walthamstow know that the fear endures even after the immediate threat has gone. That is the challenge that we have to deal with in this place: those people who promote anger rather than answers to the challenges that we face in our society. The Home Secretary talks about a review. Can she set out what she actually means by far-right extremism and such terms, because those details matter in being able to have these debates and give confidence to the communities that are targeted that we stand with them, as we did in Walthamstow that day, and as we will do every day?

• 30 Jul 2024 · Budget Responsibility Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I feel as though I am almost in Alice in Wonderland world when I listen to the Opposition response to this legislation. I certainly feel concerned that they, with the Cheshire Cat and possibly following the Queen of Hearts, might have been trying to pretend that their previous Conservative Prime Minister did not exist, or indeed that the former Member for Spelthorne was never ever the Chancellor. Those of us paying for a mortgage—and I declare a direct interest—know all too well that they were in charge and about the damage that they did with their disastrous mini-Budget, which is why this legislation is so important. I would wager that that what their constituents would tell them if they suggested that the economic harm the previous Government did to this country, for which we will all be paying for generations to come, was solely to do with Ukraine or the pandemic. That mini-Budget was a political choice, but worse than that, it was a politically uninformed choice. The Government at the time consciously and purposefully made the decision on ideological grounds to press ahead with a Budget that cost 1% of our GDP, and to hell with the consequences, as we have all seen. That is why this legislation is so important. I will always welcome a sinner who repenteth, so I am pleased that the shadow Minister recognises the value of independent scrutiny and, indeed, urges us all to go further. We will always welcome such an approach, because it is right and because our constituents deserve better, because we can see how bad things are and how broken this country is. What this Bill has at its heart are the funds to repair the damage done by the previous Administration. That is why the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is here today with this Bill to be clear with us about why it matters, why we put things on the books and why sound money is at the heart of it. The markets did not react by accident and put up all our mortgages; they saw with terror the damage that bad leadership in the Treasury can do and have accordingly asked us to meet that challenge. Frankly, there is nothing progressive about crashing the economy, and that is exactly what the previous Government did. By putting on the record the need to report independently on fiscally significant measures, we are starting with a clean sheet and saying that we will not take such a reckless approach with other people’s money. At the end of the day, that is what this is: the tax revenues that are generated are the moneys of our constituents, and it is therefore right that we are careful about how we administer them. However, I recognise that there are challenges in this legislation. I am speaking today because I hope to hear from the Ministers on the Front Bench further clarity about the concept of “fiscally significant”. As somebody who has always liked to be hawkish about public money, I think it is important that we are clear where we are investing, and I very much urge the Treasury to think about investing to save. I see in our broken society the damage that is done by poverty, poor public services and the higher costs that come with that, so I want us to be clear about the funding we have, where it is coming from and why every penny matters.

• 30 Jul 2024 · Budget Responsibility Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am genuinely perplexed whether the hon. Gentleman is with the former Member for South West Norfolk, who wanted to see the OBR abolished and not part of any decision making, or feels that the Bill does not go far enough. Either way, does he recognise and accept, as thousands of mortgage payers in this country now do, the disaster of the previous Conservative Prime Minister’s Budget, the impact it has had and the need never to go back to those days?

• 30 Jul 2024 · Budget Responsibility Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Member pre-empts many of my concerns. There is a very strong story to tell about good fiscal discipline, but it is not possible to do that independently in a modern, global economy, so the scrutiny that we can provide in this place of a whole range of regulations does matter. Those include financial regulations—I think particularly about the City and issues around a financial transaction tax, for example. I have not yet convinced him of the merits of working more closely with Europe, but I am confident that one day we can do so. I agree with him, however, that this House should be fully part of that, just as I believe in the principles behind the Bill—that disinfectant comes from transparency and our ability to see what is going on. That is why the Government are so right to bring this legislation forward. Let me move on to some areas where it is right to ask what we mean by fiscally significant. The right hon. Member and I might disagree about the deal we do in resetting our relationship with Europe, but there can be no doubt that that will have a clear economic impact on this country. I think of the hauliers who are considering whether they will give up bringing goods to the UK because of the Brexit border tax. The previous Government admitted that that measure was inflationary and could have a significant impact not just on our food security, but on our economy, pushing up the cost of living. Many of our constituents know that there is still too much month at the end of their money, and we should challenge any measure that makes that harder. That will also inflect our tax take. The point I am getting to is that if we are talking about measures that are so fiscally significant that they count for 1% of GDP, a trade deal would easily meet that criterion. We need to be clear in the Bill what we ask of the Office for Budget Responsibility—which, after all, has provided evidence on the impact, for example, of leaving the European Union—and whether we consider its role in such matters. If we are going to put everything on the books, let us make sure that the public understand fully the decisions that we make and where the information comes from. Another area in which we as a House need to act is our outgoings, especially when we are being asked to make very difficult choices about some of the most vulnerable in our communities, such as people who rely on welfare, or pensioners who rely on the winter fuel payment. We have to be honest: this country is pretty much bankrupt as a result of the previous Administration. If somebody in that dire financial position came into one of our surgeries, we would sit with them and talk about a debt relief order. We would look at their costs and particularly at consolidating the debts that they may have. Many colleagues here will know that for many years I have been concerned about legal loan sharking. That is not just in people’s private lives, but in the public sector, and I consider the private finance initiative to be the legal loan sharking of the public sector. If we are talking about fiscally significant measures—measures that meet the test of £28 billion—we should consider that we have £151 billion of outgoings committed to private finance companies in this country, against £57 billion-worth of assets. Most people can see that those figures do not add up. Local authorities spend around £18 billion every two to five years on PFI repayments, of which about £4 billion is interest costs. That would suggest an average interest rate of around 35%. If somebody came into a surgery with a loan at a 35% interest rate, we would encourage them to go to a debt relief order. Our country is no different, and this matters because, individually, local authorities might not meet that fiscally significant threshold, but collectively, they will for us. We are not going to let hospitals and schools go bust and go out of business. Parklands high school in Liverpool was built under PFI. It was closed because there was not a demand for the places, but Liverpool city council is still playing £12,000 a day for that closed school. It has repayments of £42 million left and the company that owns it is making a profit of around £340,000 a year from the scheme. Private finance companies are on our books, and they should be on our books nationally. They should be considered fiscally significant. We can do things to consolidate those loans and to reduce the outgoings that will come. My contribution to the Bill and the amendments that I might table, depending on what Ministers say, will relate to the fact that I think we need to be clear that everything that is fiscally significant—decisions that we might not proceed with and ones that we do—should be subject to that level of scrutiny. The National Audit Office has given us plenty of information about the poor value for money of private finance initiatives. Many Members who have these schools and hospitals in their constituencies will have seen this at first hand. There is evidence from the Department of Health and Social Care about what could be done to consolidate loans that probably would generate savings that would be fiscally significant, when we talk about the sums involved. It would be fantastic to see the Office for Budget Responsibility pick this matter up as part of our knowing how much we have to pay out as a country; how much of a contribution we need to make. This money is going to private companies that, on the whole, are not paying tax in this country, so it is not generating revenue that can go back into paying for the repairs that need to come. The previous Government started to look at these issues and then walked away. I know that this Government, with their commitment to fiscal discipline and fiscal transparency, will want to be open about the benefits, costs and fiscal significance both of the trade deals that we might make and of private finance initiatives. I look forward to hearing from Ministers about that. This is a very different world— [ Interruption. ] The shadow Minister is smiling. I am sure that he misses his colleague from Spelthorne, but I know he will not miss the opportunity to say sorry to all our constituents for the mess we have been left in and the reason why we need this legislation on the discipline of the OBR, and for the failure to tackle the long-term problems that have left legal loan sharks and poor trading opportunities for our constituents, because they are going to pick up the pieces for generations to come.

• 30 Jul 2024 · European Scrutiny Committee · Hansard source

  More

  Those of us who will be not on a sunbed but in our constituencies do recognise that point. The hon. Gentleman and I will take a different view on the benefits of what the Government are doing to reset our relationship with Europe now that we have left the European Union so that we can finally get the trading benefits sorted and sort out the border tax mess left by the last Government. Does he recognise that there is now a lacuna where people may question where such a debate will happen and what role parliamentarians may play in it, and that perhaps one fruitful thing would be to clarify what will happen to the European Statutory Instruments Committee, which seems to have been dissolved yet was looking at the European laws that we were transposing into UK law? There are a number of questions that may not be for this evening but are for the future of this Parliament. Given what the hon. Gentleman is expressing, he and I might disagree on the outcomes, but we agree that they are important questions, and we would like to understand what will happen next.

• 29 Jul 2024 · Public Spending: Inheritance · Hansard source

  More

  Frankly, the Conservatives’ response leaves something to be desired. After 14 years of stripping the engine of this country’s economy, their response is simply taking the piston. I am so proud that we now have a Chancellor who is not penny wise and pound foolish, but is conscious that all our constituents will have to pick up the pieces after the past 14 years. Can the Chancellor tell us a little more about her audit and what it has identified about the money wasted by the previous Government and their mismanagement of capital projects? We now know, for example, that the failure to rebuild Whipps Cross hospital has cost us an extra £15 million in the last few years alone. Our constituents will pay the price of the last Government for many years to come. This new Labour Government need to be honest with them. Sorry seems to be the hardest word for the Conservatives to say, but can the Chancellor tell us just how much money it will cost?

• 25 Jul 2024 · Code of Conduct and Modernisation Committee · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the very short time available to me, let me say, after so many glorious maiden speeches, that I hope that this place can rise to the occasion, in terms of what we do on this Modernisation Committee. The truth is that we do not have any rights as MPs, yet we come here to defend the rights of our constituents. That will matter, because this should be a modern workplace, safe not just for us, but for our staff, and accessible not just for us, but for anybody who comes to see us; and it should not be a place that leads us to divorce, drink, and all the other things that new Members of Parliament may have been warned about. In one minute, let me tell the House what I think we could do through the Committee to redress the situation and give us some rights. If hon. Members employ young women here, somebody will take them out for a drink to warn them about this place and the people that they should be aware of, but that is not good enough. We must enforce the findings of the Paul Kernaghan review, and we must ensure that where people face bullying and sexual harassment, there is no unfairness, no favour and no political interference, because, sadly, no political party can hold its head up on that score. We must learn from other jurisdictions around the world, including New Zealand, Australia and Ireland, about making this place family-friendly. That is not just about having a workplace crèche, but about holiday clubs, and knowing what time we will leave here and get home. No one in this place will enjoy doing bedtime via FaceTime, but unless we reform this place to make it family-friendly, that is the future ahead of all hon. Members and their families. Let me turn to the gender-sensitive Parliament review that we signed up to in the Kigali accord. We must make that happen, not just for the women in this place, but for all the women and men to come. There are so many things that we can do through this Modernisation Committee, which is a welcome development, but the test will be whether we do them. I urge all hon. Members, new and old, to make sure that happens.

• 23 Jul 2024 · Immigration and Home Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister will have heard the concern across the House about the Conservatives’ two-child cap on benefits. Because it exists, in the past year alone 3,000 women have had to fill in a form to admit to the Department for Work and Pensions that they have been raped and had a child that was non-consensual. That is more than the number of rape convictions under the last Government. Can she assure us that that form and that approach has no future under this Labour Government?