Income tax (charge)

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Peter Dowd

Tuesday 17th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Peter Dowd]

In a moment.

It has to be said that the Government simply underestimated the challenge facing the country, but better late than never. However, many millions of people still have no financial certainty from the Government. People are worried about their livelihoods. The Government are responsible for our decaying social and physical infrastructure. They bear a huge responsibility for the parlous state of our public realm. While we will support measures to aid our economy, we will not settle for half measures, so we will look carefully at the Chancellor’s statement and at what he says later on.

The Government’s mantra of “levelling up” also completely misjudged the serious issues facing the country. The Government are not a new Government. They have been in power for 10 years. The 12 December election was not the start of year zero. They have spent 10 years systematically and consciously levelling down the country. For example, one of the Government’s fiscal rules identified 3% of GDP as an appropriate level of public sector net investment, but, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you were to look back at the last 10 years, the Government have underspent on infrastructure—far less than 3% of GDP—every single year. That was alluded to by Conservative Members.

The gap between what the Government spent and the 3% level over 10 years in office is £192 billion. That is the size of the hole the Government have spent 10 years digging, and if you were to sift through the hype, Madam Deputy Speaker, and note the fact that the Government’s headline figures on infrastructure double-count existing spending—one estimate has put the Government’s new capital spending at £143 billion, excluding depreciation—you would see that what the Government announced last week would not even fill the big hole they dug in the first place. Now, they appear to want to be congratulated on a pathetic attempt to rebuild what they spent 10 years destroying and dismantling.

The Resolution Foundation has pointed out that the UK has a very low level of Government capital stock at about 46% of GDP. That is three quarters of the advanced economy average of 63%, so the Government are levelling up from a very low base—a low base of their own creation.

Another problem with the Government’s levelling up agenda is that there is a series of one-off announcements without any coherent plan. For a start, the Government postponed their national infrastructure strategy. Again, they have cut skills funding in recent years. By the end of the last decade, spending on apprenticeships and work-based learning had fallen by a quarter since 2009-10 in real terms. That is according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

The Budget was disappointing in relation to climate action. The environmental justice commission set up by the Institute for Public Policy Research said that £33 billion of green investment was needed a year to get to the Government’s weak target of net zero emissions by 2050. But there is £27 billion for road building, although nothing for renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. We have heard excuses over the years that they inherited a poor economy, but they have been in power for 10 years and the responsibility for the poor performance of our economy in the past 10 years lies squarely at the Government’s door. They did not believe that public investment could boost the economy. In a speech in 2009, George Osborne said that

“fiscal policy is more or less powerless to affect output”.

He was wrong about that. Let us consider the statement that a

“large planned increase in public investment should boost potential output”.—[Official Report, 11 March 2020; Vol. 673, c. 282.]

Who said those words? It was the Chancellor, when citing the Office for Budget Responsibility. Other countries took a different approach from us and did invest, and they have recovered more quickly. We have had the slowest recovery for a century in this country, and we have had the Bank of England’s chief economist Andy Haldane describing a pay “disaster”.

On that point, let me deal with the issue of the so-called “jobs miracle”, so beloved of Conservative Members. What they fail to mention is that low pay, zero-hours contracts and insecure working conditions bankroll that act of God, meaning that 8 million people in working households are living in poverty. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s annual poverty report, seven in 10 children in poverty are now in a working family. I am not sure that God would like his name associated with that outcome.

The Office for National Statistics is reporting falling manufacturing output and zero growth in the three months to January because of “widespread weakness”—and that was before the outbreak of the coronavirus. The Government could have started in the Budget to invest in our public services, as well as our infrastructure, but they chose not to do so. As the IFS said last week, after this Budget spending on day-to-day services will still be well below what it was in 2010-11 per head—so much for levelling up. What we have is the Government putting off tackling areas in our economy where bold decisions are needed. The economic crisis facing the country as a result of the coronavirus simply proves their lack of foresight and planning. They have left our public services so depleted of capacity that many fear they will struggle to cope.

We have before us the so-called “Get it done” Chancellor, but he is more like the put-it-off Chancellor. He even put off his announcement today. What about social care—is he getting that done? No, he is having another review. He has put it off. What about the Green Book—is he getting that done? No, he is having another review. He is putting that off. What about the fiscal rules framework—is he getting it done? No, he is having another review. He is putting it off. What about the national investment plan—is he getting it done? No, he is having another review. He is putting it off. He cannot even decide when he is going to have a comprehensive spending review. In a footnote on page 30 of the Red Book, which I know all Conservative Members will have assiduously read, he says that he will

“keep the timing of the CSR under review”.

I hope you will bear with me here, Madam Deputy Speaker. In other words, he is even putting off the timing of the review of the review of the comprehensive review. So much for getting things done.

There is a great deal of not getting things done going on in No. 10 at the moment, contrary to the belief of the backslappers opposite. The word “review” is mentioned no fewer than 117 times in the Red Book, which has only 120 pages in it, including the blank ones. The Chancellor reminds me of the character in one of the less well-known Monty Python sketches: the self-satisfied president of the royal society for putting things on top of other things; we have a meaningless body of men gathered together for no good reason—that is the Cabinet. No wonder we have the lowest productivity levels of our G7 partners, and this is getting worse because the man in charge of getting things done is far too busy putting things off.

Let me give the Chancellor a word of advice. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The House is being unfair to the hon. Gentleman. There is too much noise going on, and we must hear him.

[Peter Dowd]

Well, they are Tories.

Let me give the Chancellor a word of advice: I suggest that, for the sake of the country, he stops putting things off and gets things done by pulling his finger out.

Mortgage Prisoners

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Peter Dowd

Thursday 6th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) for securing this debate, and for his comments about his constituents, who he described as real people with real lives and terrible fears about already high interest rates increasing further. He spoke about the need to move from a computer-driven affordability test to a reality test, so that we can say yes to people and there will be better protections. He also said that capitalism must be tempered by responsibility and fairness, and that the interests of the consumer must be put before corporate interests. I agree with him.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Gordon Marsden) said that he was drawn in by the real-life experiences of his constituents, and that what the Government and the FCA have done so far is inadequate. He paid tribute to those journalists who exposed the role of lenders, and said there has been insufficient due diligence in the process. He said that we have a moral duty to act, and called for a formal inquiry.

The hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) talked about the need for a statutory obligation to permit a switch to more affordable products if necessary, and a powerful presumption, if that is not allowed, for non-possession where the switch has been refused. I think that that is a perfectly reasonable position to take.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) talked about the enormous hardship placed on customers, who are being punished because they have been caught up in the middle of regulatory change. She said that selling off to Cerberus was a major policy failure and that UK Assets Ltd was misled. She also said that the FCA has been complacent, and that Ministers should do something about that particular issue.

The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) was surprised to see regulated mortgages sold off to unregulated companies. The impact on his constituents was to put them in terribly stressful situations and he said that that experience remains raw. As he said, “See it, say it, sorted.”

My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) asked why, when we have a land of home ownership, we are allowing such a threat to that home ownership by the practices of unregulated lenders that can be accessed via an email. He said that there are 300 to 400 people affected in each constituency.

The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) talked about people trapped by large exit fees or the rigidity of new lending criteria, leading in some cases to the loss of homes and assets transferred to vulture funds. He reminded us that behind each broken product is a person and a home.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) said that part of the legacy of the crash was banks seeking to benefit from the turmoil, with people trapped in purgatory. Let us hope it is purgatory, because you can get out of purgatory. It is very difficult to get out of hell.

The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) gave an example of how his constituents, like so many people, were affected by the transfer to Cerberus and how they are locked in to a poor product, with the consequential impact on their lives and finances of having to pay three or maybe four times the usual interest rate.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) called for an urgent inquiry into the issue. He wanted to add his support to addressing this particular subject. He referred to the grooming of customers in order to rip them off even more and how banks have little interest in customers whose mortgages they have sold on, and said that that is not acceptable.

The hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) paid tribute to troops on D-day. I think we all support and give our full commitment to that. He then asked why this matter had not been sorted out. He did so in his usual wishy-washy way by skirting around the issue: he simply said that it is wrong for the people we represent and he is right.

The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) gave an excellent speech. It was a very considered, thoughtful and forensic speech which asked the question: why on earth do we let them get away with it? Why did we let them get away with it before the crash? They created the conditions and the process, and then they went back to consumers and businesses and said that their businesses, houses or mortgages were no longer sustainable. The impact is on families. The bankers created the conditions for mortgage prisoners and it is really up to us to do something about it.

The hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) talked about the damage to people’s life chances. The selling off to vulture funds has led to thousands of people being caught up in unregulated systems, with a lot of asset-stripping going on.

Finally, the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) set out the cost of higher interest rates as a result of the lack of access to more competitive rates and the impact on businesses. She made the point that this is not just a legacy issue, but a threat to the future.

I understand that this is the seventh debate that we have held on banking in a year. I have to say that it is a sad state of affairs when we are having a debate on mortgage prisoners and vulture funds. There is something wrong with that and it speaks volumes. I was at a meeting today with about 25 people who are either affected by the issue or who are helping and supporting those who are affected. I suspect that many are in the Public Gallery today and I welcome them. Some are in despair and feel completely powerless against powerful bodies that simply ignore them, and they feel let down by us.

Lenders have an approach to their customers that is simply take it or leave it. Since the global financial crisis, we have heard many voices in this House speaking about the cost of that disastrous period, born out of rapacity, as the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton said. In some quarters, that rapacity continues. I am sorry to say that UK Asset Resolution Limited, which is owned by the state, has not helped in the curtailment of that culture and has potentially encouraged it, even if by default. As many people have asked, why, for example, has it sold off mortgages to companies that are not regulated? In effect, they have been left at the mercy of those companies by the state and the Government. That is not acceptable. A Government company selling off assets to unregulated companies—it is difficult to believe.

My first question to the Minister is this: why has the Government allowed UK Asset Resolution Limited to do that? What is he going to do about that, and about the 200,000 people financially imprisoned by this scam? I do not accept in any way the Government’s argument that this is a question of being at arm’s length from these matters. How can the Government take such an approach when their citizens are being ripped off? They are in danger of aiding and abetting that ripping off. How can they continue to allow people who pay their mortgages and bills, and who carry on with their daily living against the odds, to be penalised? People are in a position where the inequality of bargaining is causing no end of hardship, worry, familial dislocation and, in some cases, attempts at suicide and perhaps loss of life. Millions of people have suffered from not just the recession caused by the rapacity of banks, but the cuts to social security and public spending that followed. I remind Members that in one fashion or another, the banking bail-out cost £1.5 trillion to put right, according to the Office for National Statistics.

We are hearing today about one group who have particularly suffered as a result of the financial meltdown and the decisions that have been taken since. For many Members of this House—and members of the public—who have mortgages, it seems unconscionable that we have not been able to refinance them at more competitive rates. The ability to do so is part of a healthy mortgage market that does not allow lenders to abuse their positions. The reality of those locked into interest rates that are sometimes three times the going rate can be horrendous, as we have heard time and again today from the 14 or 15 Members who spoke.

How can it be possible that people are ineligible for a mortgage when they will be paying less? That question has been asked so many times today. What a bizarre state of affairs. It will cost people less than their current mortgage so they cannot have it. Did we bail out the system only to allow the system to continue to penalise people who have not failed to keep up payments? These consumers, despite being up-to-date with their mortgage payments and seeking to move to a more affordable deal without borrowing more, are being held back by inactive lenders and entities not authorised for mortgage lending.

The practice of selling mortgages and unregulated commercial loans to unregulated funds has been creating mortgage prisoners, exposes businesses to asset stripping and threatens to continue to create further mortgage prisoners and risks to businesses, as laid out in the motion. Yet we seem to be seeing a curious case of blame-shifting. The chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority referred in evidence to the Treasury Committee last year to a “peculiarity” of EU law. A peculiarity—is that it? Others seem to have suggested that the UK’s interpretation of the law is at fault. At any rate, the directive was brought into UK law in 2016, so the Government of the time and the Government of today have a responsibility to deal with the problem, wherever and whenever it originates. As I said earlier, its origins lie in the reckless behaviour of the those in the banking sector in the years running up to the crash. They were not reckless in lending to so many individuals, but they were reckless in their general approach to risk and exposure to little-understood derivatives. As a result of their behaviour, the aggressive downsizing of balance sheets meant that people with no history of default were put into high-risk groups and, ultimately, had their mortgages transferred to vulture funds, becoming de facto credit risks despite impeccable credit histories. Many of these funds are outside the purview of standard regulation, and the FCA may in some cases legitimately claim that as a result there is little it can do. However, it must come forward with proposals, rather than just sitting on the sidelines. That is its responsibility.

I pay tribute to all the campaigners who have brought this matter to the attention of the House, including the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton and the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking. They have been absolute stalwarts in pursuing the matter. I urge the Government to move as quickly as possible to establish whether the problem lies in EU regulation or in its interpretation, and to address it as swiftly as possible.

I am glad that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove referred to Cerberus, which features in Greek mythology. This particular three-headed dog, however, locked victims not just in hell but in negativity, repetition and hopelessness. This dog is symbolic of the inability of people to leave because they are trapped in an expensive mortgage hell. The Government must now put it on a leash, and sort out the rules.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Before I call the Minister, let me echo the words of the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) in welcoming to the Public Gallery a great many people who are interested and involved in this subject, and who, I gather, have met Members this afternoon. I see Members assenting to that.

I draw attention to this because we so often hear criticism of what happens in the Chamber, and hear it described as a circus or a bear pit. It is delightful for once to be able to show the people who care about this subject that when matters are debated properly, thoughtfully, forensically and collaboratively here in the Chamber, it makes a difference.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Peter Dowd

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 8th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 5—Review of public health and poverty effects—

‘(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the public health and poverty effects of the provisions of this Act and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.

(2) A review under this section must consider—

(a) the effects of the provisions of this Act on the levels of relative and absolute poverty in the UK,

(b) the effects of the provisions of this Act on life expectancy and healthy life expectancy in the UK, and

(c) the implications for the public finances of the public health effects of the provisions of this Act.’

[Peter Dowd]

I rise to speak to new clause 1 in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and other Members.

In opening for the Opposition today, I shall start with a few general comments on the Bill before moving on to my substantive remarks on child poverty and equality. First, I must mention the new schedule the Government have tabled, at this late stage, on intangible fixed assets. It is yet another example of the Government’s absolute contempt for parliamentary processes—a result of their desperation to cling to power. Although the Chancellor announced this proposal at the Budget, the introduction of this detailed schedule at this stage of the Bill guarantees that Members are denied the opportunity to scrutinise it properly. It circumvents the Public Bill Committee process, which was created to ensure that technical measures such as this one receive forensic and detailed analysis. This is no way for any Government to conduct legislation. With that in mind, perhaps the Minister could explain why this measure has been included at the final stage of this Bill, denying Members the opportunity to properly scrutinise it. Is it a deliberate decision to once again circumvent parliamentary process? Will he consider withdrawing the schedule and including it in the next Finance Bill later this year, ensuring that it receives the proper parliamentary scrutiny it actually warrants?

It appears that Ministers are hellbent on starting this new year in the same fashion that they ended the last—by treating Members of this House as a peripheral part of the law-making process, bypassing parliamentary processes and breaking long-established conventions. The vast majority of Members in this House are fed up to the back teeth with the Government’s attempts to avoid parliamentary scrutiny.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

I am sure the House would be delighted to hear my psephological analysis of the general election, but we are talking about the Finance Bill. You are very generous, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I do not think even you would be sufficiently generous as to hear my psephological comments.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

It gives me great pleasure to agree with the hon. Gentleman. He was doing very well on new clause 1.

[Peter Dowd]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The UN special rapporteur has concluded that the rising level of child poverty is a result of political choices, underpinned by the Government’s callous austerity agenda. I will draw my comments to a conclusion because I know that lots of Members want to comment on how dreadful the Government are, how they try to stitch up Committees, how they do not allow us to have proper debates and how—for the first time since Winston Churchill introduced the notion—they have circumvented the amendment of the law motion. They talk about bringing back control to the House of Commons, but they are bringing back control to about two or three people on the Front Bench, and that does not include the Treasury Ministers.

The Finance Bill before us is yet another Bill of broken promises. It offers further tax reliefs for the rich and for multinational corporations, and it prolongs austerity for yet another year, condemning many families and many children to abject poverty. Labour’s new clause 1 would require the Government finally to assess the impact of their economic policies on the most vulnerable in our society. It would require the Government to face up to their responsibility to come and explain to this House why they are not yet changing their economic policies, despite the obvious evidence that they are doing dreadful—I repeat, dreadful—damage to this country and to our communities.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Peter Dowd

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 19th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Peter Dowd]

The actual author of that article called the Prime Minister a word that would be unparliamentary if that is what he said. He called her that particular word. If the author is calling the Prime Minister a particular word, should the hon. Lady not accept the fact that the author did not say that?

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is rightly respecting parliamentary language. Rather than refer to language that is unparliamentary, if he simply wants to say that the alleged author of those alleged words denies them, he is at liberty to do so.

[Peter Dowd]

Thank you very much, Dame Eleanor. That is precisely what I wanted to say.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Bill

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Peter Dowd

2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 24th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister asserted that the respected Oxford economist and professor, Simon Wren-Lewis, said, in reference to Labour’s manifesto,

“the numbers did not add up”.

However, Professor Wren-Lewis disputes the accuracy of those remarks. He issued the following comments this afternoon, and I would like to be clear that these are the professor’s words, not mine:

“Apparently the Prime Minister quoted me saying about Labour’s 2017 manifesto ‘the numbers did not add up’ In fact I said ‘Let us suppose the IFS was correct’ and examined consequences. I have never taken a view on whether they did/didn’t add up. If that is what she said, she”—

he goes on to use a word that I am unable to use, regarding the incongruous relationship between the Prime Minister’s comments and the truth. I just repeat that those are the professor’s words, not mine.

Would it be appropriate for the Prime Minister to come back to this House to correct the record and apologise to the renowned professor in question? May I seek your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, on the best course of action?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. As he knows, and as Mr Speaker always says when dealing with such points of order, what Ministers say at the Dispatch Box is not a matter for the Chair. I am quite sure that whatever the Prime Minister said today, she said in good faith, but the hon. Gentleman wishes to bring another version of that to the attention of the House, the Prime Minister and her Ministers. By raising this point of order, he has succeeded in doing that. As for when the Prime Minister will come back to the House, I am quite sure that, in the normal course of events, she will be back here soon—certainly by next Wednesday, when of course the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will have the opportunity to ask her about this directly, and I am sure that he will take that opportunity.

Universal Credit

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Peter Dowd

Tuesday 13th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Peter Dowd]

No, I will not.

Far from seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, this Government have indicated once more their relentless desire to throw some of the poorest into the shade. While the Chancellor came to the House today to pat himself on the back, with no sense of irony whatsoever, these new regulations remind us that austerity is far from over. Depriving some of the poorest children in the country access to a free school meal on its own would be considered shameful, but paired with the restriction on childcare vouchers and the introduction of tougher criteria for universal credit, we have a cruel cocktail of cuts and misery—and Tory Members know a lot about cocktails as well when they are at their meals.

The Children’s Society estimates—[Interruption.] Fact check: the Children’s Society estimates that the changes the measures the Government are seeking to introduce will see 1 million children in poverty unable to benefit from free school meals because of them pulling the rug on the current transitional arrangements, and to add insult to injury, by setting an income threshold for the children of those on universal credit to qualify for free school meals, the Government are creating a cliff-hanger which will leave around 350,000 families worse off. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. There are clearly heightened tempers, but we must have some decorum to allow us to listen to Mr Dowd.

[Peter Dowd]

Thank you; “They don’t like it up ’em.”

These families, who will move just above the threshold, will be forced to shoulder the cost of school meals from their household budgets at the cost of hundreds of pounds per child.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

What I will say is this—[Interruption.] If Tory Members want to listen, I am more than happy to say this:

“I am unable to watch passively whilst certain policies are enacted in order to meet the fiscal self-imposed restraints that I believe are more and more perceived as distinctly political rather than in the national economic interest.”

That is from the right hon. Gentleman’s resignation letter.

Why do the Government feel the need to cut the number of children who are eligible for free school meals? Why are the Conservatives keen to limit the number of parents eligible for childcare vouchers? And why do Ministers seem content with ensuring that the self-employed and disabled on universal credit are worse off and at further risk of sanctions?

The Chancellor’s mantra, as with his predecessor, has been fiscal prudence, a concept hijacked by an ideologue for ideological purposes. He has long proclaimed, whether on spending on public services or on the welfare state, that there must be belt-tightening. In the name of balancing the Budget, we have seen almost a fifth of women’s refuge shelters close under this Government’s cuts, while 41% of children’s services are unable to perform their statutory duties. Yet the Chancellor can somehow conjure up money to give large multinational corporations and the wealthiest £70 billion-worth of tax cuts by the end of the Parliament; no belt-tightening there.

If we look at the decision to cut the top rate of income tax from 50p to 45p alone, research—fact—has shown that those earning over £1 million pounds a year have saved on average £554,000 from 2013 to 2018. There was no belt-tightening there, either. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Members must not shout at the hon. Gentleman.

[Peter Dowd]

Over the past five years, this tax cut has cost the British taxpayer £8.4 billion. That £8.4 billion could instead have fully funded universal credit, extended free school meals or ensured tax-free childcare for all. Fact check: that is a fact.

Childcare remains the biggest cost for working households. For some families, the childcare bill is crippling their finances. The childcare voucher scheme is not only popular but well subscribed, with some 780,000 parents using vouchers and more than 50,000 employers offering childcare voucher schemes. Most employers who provide vouchers currently do so through salary sacrifice schemes, exempting recipients from income tax and national insurance on vouchers up to a maximum of £55 a week. The scheme has its flaws—for example, it does not cover self-employed people and requires employers to be registered—but overall, most parents and employers who use the scheme believe that the system works, and an overwhelming majority want it to stay. There is another fact check.

It is not really surprising that the Government are planning to pass regulations this evening that would close the scheme to new applicants, particularly considering their shambolic introduction of the alternative tax-free childcare scheme. The Government’s much-awaited tax-free childcare scheme opened to parents this year, a full five years since it was originally announced. [Interruption.] That is another fact that Conservative Members do not like. To call the roll-out disastrous would be a grave understatement. On top of the delays, HMRC’s website crashed, forcing the Government to pay nearly £1 million to parents in lieu of childcare payments. Hardly a great start! Under the current voucher system, the amount of childcare a family gets is tied to their earnings. Under the new system, it is based instead on expenditure, so the childcare system will benefit those who can afford to spend the most, with the Government’s headline figure of £2,000 tax free reserved for those parents who have an extra £10,000 lying around.

It is well known that the tax-free childcare scheme is the pet project of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. She has consistently called for better value for money when it comes to public spending and said that the Government should avoid spending money that they do not have. However, under the new scheme, parents sending their children to independent schools will also be able to claim the £2,000 tax-free amount for childcare. How can the Chief Secretary justify that? Surely, the money spent giving a tax break to those who can afford to send their children to some of the most expensive fee-paying schools in the country could instead be used to ensure that a million children do not lose access to free school meals. There is no reason why the Government should not listen to the calls of the Opposition, of parents and of employers across the country who want to keep the voucher scheme open and extend it to the self-employed.

I should like to turn now to the Local Authority (Duty to Secure Early Years Provision Free of Charge) (Amendment) Regulations 2018 and the Universal Credit (Miscellaneous Amendments, Saving and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2018. As we have heard, the first of these instruments creates new eligibility criteria for families applying for 15 hours of free childcare for their two-year-old through universal credit—

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is not going to give way. Please allow him to finish.

[Peter Dowd]

The facts do rile them, don’t they? They have asked for facts all afternoon. Then they get a few and they just don’t like them. I shall be coming to a close very shortly. It is as simple as this. Fortunately, at least the public now have a clear choice between the two parties: a Government of the past wedded to a failed ideological nightmare, or a Labour party that will govern for the many, not the few. Finally, is there any vulnerable group or person that this self-obsessed, clapped-out, washed-out, out-of-time Government are not prepared to attack?

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Peter Dowd

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 21st February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I call Peter Dowd.

[Peter Dowd]

Very little that I have heard from the other side in this debate has convinced me that we should withdraw our new clause—

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Peter Dowd

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 11th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is not giving way.

[Peter Dowd]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mind you, anything to avoid even more embarrassment for an enfeebled Prime Minister. Our stretched public services and crumbling infrastructure desperately need investment. We need bold, imaginative and innovative answers to tackle our slowing economic growth and falling productivity and to give workers the pay rise they deserve.

As my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Ruth George) said, since 2010 the Government have added more than £720 billion to the national debt, yet they have failed at every opportunity to invest. Instead, they have borrowed record amounts just to cover day-to-day spending. Labour Members are clear: it is high time the Government borrowed to invest in infrastructure, jobs and skills that will grow our economy sustainably. That is not controversial, no matter how much Conservative Members fulminate about it. [Interruption.] Well, they can simply ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who wants to borrow £50 billion to solve the housing crisis. Where will that money come from?

If we asked any business owner, they would tell us that they borrow to grow their business and, in so doing, they reap the rewards. They do not borrow to pay the day-to-day bills, as the Government have done, year after year. They borrow to invest—an alien concept to the Government. If this clapped-out Government are unwilling to invest in our people and our nation, its talent and its entrepreneurial spirit, I assure the Minister that the next Labour Government will.

We will invest in infrastructure across every region and nation to create high-wage, high-productivity jobs and start a large-scale house building programme, backed up with controls on rent. We will tackle debt, introducing further controls on high-interest, short-term lending, and we will scrap tuition fees.

While we are at it, we will lift for the whole of the public sector the public sector pay cap that has so damaged the morale of our staff in vital services. We will fix universal credit and put the compassion that the Government have sucked out back into our social security system. We will introduce a £10-an-hour real living wage that people can live off, not get by on. In doing all that, we will ensure that people in every region and nation, in every community and age group, have a Government that listen, act and ensure well-paid jobs, roofs over their heads and an economy that works for the many, not the few.

Finance Bill

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Peter Dowd

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I could not quite hear the right hon. Gentleman’s point of order, but I am guessing what I thought he probably said. I must say that the content of the speech by the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) is not a matter for me, but I am aware that we are discussing only the Finance Bill and we must stick to that. The Bill is, however, wide and varied. I have it here and I have looked at it —[Laughter.] And I will make absolutely certain that nobody speaks outwith the order that is due.

[Peter Dowd]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Your judgment is wonderful, as ever, on these matters.

What a cocktail of horrors it must have been for the Brexit Secretary. I almost felt sorry for him by the time my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras had finished his humiliating dissection of his case—but not quite. If squirming was an Olympic sport, the Brexit Secretary would have won a gold medal, hands down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

Far be it from me to give advice, but the hon. Lady should go to a dictionary to find out the difference between “a debt” and “a fee”. She clearly does not know what she is talking about. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has important questions to answer.

[Peter Dowd]

Thank you, once again, Madam Deputy Speaker.

In the Financial Secretary’s enthusiasm to explicate the Government’s record on the economy, he made no mention of a number of important elements that the 72 clauses in this Bill do nothing to deal with.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Questions have been asked of the hon. Gentleman and I would like to hear the answers. I cannot hear what he is saying.

[Peter Dowd]

While I am on the subject, since the Financial Secretary stood up around 25 minutes ago, £4 million has been added to the national debt. If Government Members do not recognise those Office for National Statistics-based calculations, they may wish to make up their own, which is what the Chancellor seems to do fairly regularly.

The Financial Secretary also forgot to mention the fact that median incomes in the north-west, south-west and west midlands are 30% lower than those in London and the south-east, and 35% and 22% lower than those in Wales and Scotland respectively.