Boundary Changes (Edmonton)
Debate between Andrew Love and Baroness Primarolo(13 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Perhaps, Mr Love, you could resume your seat so that we can wait until Members have left the Chamber quietly.
Mr Love
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I am pleased to present this petition on the new boundaries for the Edmonton constituency. My constituents are outraged that the boundary commissioners have ganged up on Edmonton, proposing changes that try to cross the natural barrier of the River Lea, which is over 1 mile wide in parts and separates the two distinct parts of the new constituency. There are no direct transport links across the new constituency, and this undermines existing community ties. My constituents are petitioning the House to make time for a debate on the proposed changes to the boundaries of the constituency of Edmonton.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of residents of Edmonton and others,
Declares that the Petitioners are opposed to the proposed boundary changes put forward by the Boundary Commission for England in relation to the constituency of Edmonton, as the Petitioners believe that the proposed changes will undermine existing community ties and declares that the Petitioners believe that the integrity of Edmonton should be maintained through links with other adjacent communities.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to make time for a debate on the proposed changes by the Boundary Commission for England to the constituency of Edmonton.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000984]
Petition
Debate between Andrew Love and Baroness Primarolo(13 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Perhaps, Mr Love, you could resume your seat so that we can wait until Members have left the Chamber quietly.
Mr Love
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I am pleased to present this petition on the new boundaries for the Edmonton constituency. My constituents are outraged that the boundary commissioners have ganged up on Edmonton, proposing changes that try to cross the natural barrier of the River Lea, which is over 1 mile wide in parts and separates the two distinct parts of the new constituency. There are no direct transport links across the new constituency, and this undermines existing community ties. My constituents are petitioning the House to make time for a debate on the proposed changes to the boundaries of the constituency of Edmonton.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of residents of Edmonton and others,
Declares that the Petitioners are opposed to the proposed boundary changes put forward by the Boundary Commission for England in relation to the constituency of Edmonton, as the Petitioners believe that the proposed changes will undermine existing community ties and declares that the Petitioners believe that the integrity of Edmonton should be maintained through links with other adjacent communities.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to make time for a debate on the proposed changes by the Boundary Commission for England to the constituency of Edmonton.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000984]
Finance (No. 3) Bill
Debate between Andrew Love and Baroness Primarolo(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Love
Yes, absolutely. If we look at business investment, which in some senses reflects how optimistic employers, manufacturers and other parts of the economy are about the future, we will see that we have not had the increase in business investment that all the forecasters, economists and coalition politicians have been telling us we should have. That reflects the wider issues in the economy that should be of such major concern. We cannot expect a cut in corporation tax to solve all the problems, but the merit of the amendment is that it proposes that the Government try to indicate how much additional growth and employment will be created as a result. In the previous debate, the Minister suggested that a cut in corporation tax would boost investment.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I appreciate that the Government themselves have said that corporation tax and capital allowances are part of a package, and I have therefore allowed a linked debate, even though we have finished debating corporation tax. However, the hon. Gentleman needs to focus a little more on capital allowances, which are the subject of the amendment.
Mr Love
Thank you for your guidance, Ms Primarolo. I will move swiftly on to capital allowances. The Government have discussed the need to widen the tax base and they have told us that reducing capital allowances is partly a method of paying for the cut in the headline rate. As I mentioned in an intervention, that phenomenon has been apparent in most western countries in recent years and, indeed, all the economists project that there will be much greater competition in business taxes. Corporation tax is likely to continue to come down, and the reduction will be partly made up by widening the tax base.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), I am prepared to consider the changes to capital allowances, although I am concerned about the cut in the annual investment allowance from £100,000 to £25,000. I am perfectly happy, however, to look at that if we are reassured that the proposal in the amendment will make a significant difference. As has been said—and I have said so myself—the Office for Budget Responsibility added a rather sceptical note to the debate by suggesting, even though it had been informed at a late stage of the 1% cut in corporation tax, that that would not have a great impact on growth.
Finally, I want to focus on the issue of who will benefit from the changes to capital allowances. As a number of Opposition Members have said, high-profit, low-investment companies will be the main beneficiaries of the package, which is unfair and, if I may say so, will not achieve the rebalancing of the economy that the Chancellor has promoted for a considerable period, away from financial services towards the manufacturing and production of export-oriented goods. The change militates against all that. In particular—and I refer to the cut from £100,000 to £25,000—it will penalise manufacturing, particularly businesses with high capital costs. My right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn mentioned the motor industry and others, but I am concerned, because I have a number of small, capital-intensive manufacturers in my constituency. Sadly, they are only a remnant of the manufacturing sector that we had 25 or 30 years ago, but we need them and we need to promote them. I am therefore worried about the Government’s proposals.