EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (FTA) AND INVESTMENT PROTECTION AGREEMENT (IPA)

Debate between Barry Gardiner and Chris Leslie

Monday 10th September 2018 General Committees

[Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I had not intended to speak, but I have a number of criticisms of the Government. On the Brexit process, for instance, whether we keep existing free trade agreements or make new ones, will it be possible for agreements to be rolled over in time for exit day? I have real doubts about the Department’s commitment to securing the arrangements for that.

The contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North prompts me to query the conclusions he has reached. He takes a similar stance on this agreement as he took to our trade agreements with Canada and Japan. As a party, we cannot take a purist, oppositionalist view to all potential trade agreements. No trade agreements are perfect. They all involve some degree of compromise. By no means do I say that the Singapore-European Union free trade agreement is perfect—I am sure, were we all individually in charge, we would all have far greater insight than the negotiators and be able to secure a far better deal—but I am worried that there are real firms, real jobs and a real economy in the real world that may be affected if we turned our face against all proposed trade agreements. It is therefore not responsible to oppose a motion that simply welcomes the proposed signature and conclusion of the EU-Singapore free trade agreement.

The motion notes the signature of the IPA. As I understand it, the Singapore-EU IPA is similar to the Canadian arrangement and far superior to that which was mooted in the proposed TTIP agreement with the United States. A number of objections were made to that, but as I see it, the proposal we are debating is more transparent and would have less impact on public procurement. We have to weigh up this whole question in the round.

At best, my hon. Friend may not be seeing the wood for the trees. If we turn our face against all future trade agreements, we may inhibit the trading gains and growth that we may be able to secure for our constituents. At worst, we are allowing the anti-trade ideological zeal from some quarters on the left to infect us against free trade arrangements more generally. It would be terribly damaging to allow the Labour party to get into that stance.

[Barry Gardiner]

I have delayed the Committee quite enough, so I do not propose to intervene for long, but I hope my hon. Friend understands that I made it clear that we in the Labour party would support the free trade agreement element of what we are discussing. We believe the Government have not handled the matter correctly. We believe that the impact assessment should have been much better, and that a number of questions rightly raised by the European Scrutiny Committee, which the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole put forward, should have been addressed much earlier. Having said that, we would support the free trade agreement element. There is no dispute whatsoever between my hon. Friend and I on that matter. We must enhance trade and let business in this country thrive, for the sake of our economy, jobs and growth.

However, the Government bundled the IPA in this way. They could have separated it out. In fact, the European Union has tried to separate these things out. This Government have not. That is their failing. They cannot expect us to swallow something that is, in policy terms and in logical, logistical and chronological terms, legally problematic along with the free trade agreement, which otherwise we would have accepted.

[Mr Leslie]

I heard my hon. Friend’s argument the first time. As I said, we can take an absolute view—that unless we get 100% perfection in every area, we will vote against things—but we also need to take a view on our responsibilities with our vote. If my hon. Friend’s very powerful speech persuaded all Committee members to take the same view that he did, the UK would turn down the ratification of the EU-Singapore free trade agreement and the British contribution, as we try to negotiate amicable and cordial relationships with the rest of the EU, would be to say “Get lost!” to the EU-Singapore trade arrangement. At this particular time, it would not be prudent, diplomatic or wise, especially as we are leaving, for the UK to sabotage the EU’s trade arrangements with Singapore. I happen to think that we should support a Singapore-UK free trade agreement in these terms—I am glad to hear him say that. Obviously, I would want that to be rolled over.

This agreement is an important link to the ASEAN economies; it has net benefits for our constituents. As Vic Feather, the famous trade unionist from Bradford, once said, “If your boy comes home from school with 99 out of 100, don’t hit him over the head.” Sometimes we need to accept that there are gains to be had from being responsible and taking the best that might be on offer. Sure, it could be better and improved, but a responsible approach to trade at this particularly sensitive time in our negotiations with the European Union would not be to block the EU-Singapore trade deal. My hon. Friend may be right that it is a bit mischievous for the Government potentially to wrap these things together in the motion, but the motion is simply a “take note” motion. There are other ways and means of raising these particular issues. I am not minded to oppose the motion before the Committee.

EU-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement

Debate between Barry Gardiner and Chris Leslie

Tuesday 26th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner]

I will make a little progress, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I know that you want to encourage other Members to speak.

The automotive industry offers the clearest indication of the issues posed by the EU’s deal with Japan. The EU-Japan EPA will, for example, remove the 10% tariff that currently applies to all car imports into the UK from Japan, which will—again, according to the Government’s figures—result in a £2.8 billion surge in Japanese car imports into the UK. That will have significant implications for the future viability of our domestic automotive sector and the thousands of jobs attached to it. But this is precisely where the Government’s assessment is so hopelessly unsatisfactory. It fails to ask the real questions as to what the long-term impacts on the UK car industry might be when we remove the existing 10% tariffs on Japanese car imports. This question is clearly of the utmost importance when it comes to safeguarding jobs in the UK auto industry, as there will no longer be a trade incentive to maintain Japanese investment in precisely the way in which my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) and for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith) mentioned earlier.

[Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I wonder whether my hon. Friend could help me out, because the Opposition are very keen to get to the denouement of this particular question. It feels to me as though he is raising some issues of concern. But, by and large, this is quite a positive deal for the UK, the EU and Japan. Is he saying that we should oppose the motion before the House?

[Barry Gardiner]

I am astonished. I should have thought that each week my hon. Friend reads—just as I do—the Whip that comes out from our Whips Office, so he will know perfectly well which way we will be voting. [Interruption.] No, and Government Members will get to find out in due course.

[Mr Leslie]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Trade Bill

Debate between Barry Gardiner and Chris Leslie

Tuesday 9th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner]

My hon. Friend makes an entirely fair point, and it is a criticism that I hope will be prosecuted fully in Committee.

[Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I slightly disagree with my hon. Friend when he says that he is 100% certain about what people thought they were voting for, because leaving the customs union was not on the ballot paper at the referendum. Can I persuade him to encourage our Front-Bench colleagues to support participation in the customs union because, as he will know, that is the view of 85% of the Labour party membership?

[Barry Gardiner]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I commend him for the article he published this morning on LabourList, which I thought was an excellent exposé of the Bill. To answer his specific question, once the UK leaves the European Union, it cannot remain in the EU customs union, because by definition when a state leaves the European Union all EU rules cease to apply to it, as set out in article 50. The customs union is an institution of the European Union; it has its legal basis in the European treaties and its functioning is set out in EU regulations.

Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Bill

Debate between Barry Gardiner and Chris Leslie

Monday 15th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

That is a pertinent point. The Government seem oblivious to the thoughtful concerns being expressed by industry practitioners about the damage that is being done. Their ideological fixation with austerity has led them to a position in which they have completely pulled the rug out from underneath the economy, and we are still only at an early stage of being able to calculate the damage.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend answer a question on amendment 11, which proposes to add the words “within the United Kingdom” to clause 1(1)? One of the most important areas of infrastructure over the next decade will be energy, and the infrastructure required to meet our energy need will include interconnectors for electricity and gas pipelines that will come across Europe from the Caucasus. I presume that the Bill, as it stands, could incentivise investment in interconnectors and gas pipelines, but would it still be able to do so if the amendment were agreed to, even though parts of the pipelines would obviously be within the United Kingdom?

[Chris Leslie]

It is important to recognise that we want the benefits of any financial assistance to be felt in the UK economy. I shall deal with the details of the amendments in a moment. We believe that the scheme should focus on stimulating growth within these shores, and prioritising resources for infrastructure within the United Kingdom is the right approach. The Minister will undoubtedly point out that, as part of the guarantees under the scheme that the Government announced in July, a £5 billion export refinancing facility was introduced to underwrite the lending commitments of foreign buyers of UK exports. Of course we believe that export credit guarantees can be legitimate and helpful to construction exports, but in times of UK recession, our priorities should lie squarely here at home.

Incidentally, if there is such a great demand for the services of the Export Credits Guarantee Department—which is part of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills—why does it appear to have underspent its existing budget in the past year? That does not suggest that there is a need to divert resources from domestic infrastructure into bankrolling foreign firms any more than is currently the case. The latest research shows that infrastructure spending within the UK will be of far greater benefit to our economy.

Indeed, the IMF had discussions last week about the multipliers. I do not want to go into too much technical detail, but the Office for Budget Responsibility used a fiscal multiplier of 0.5, which meant that Ministers thought that each pound they cut from public expenditure and capital investment would reduce economic output by only 50p. However, after examining the records of many countries that have embraced austerity since the financial crisis, the IMF reckons that the true multiplier is between 0.9 and 1.7. That has led the TUC to reveal that if the real multiplier is 1.3—somewhere in the middle of the IMF’s range—the OBR has underestimated the impact of the cuts by a cumulative £76 billion, more than 8% of gross domestic product, over five years. Instead of shaving less than 1% off economic growth during this financial year, austerity has potentially depressed it by more than 2%, which helps to explain why the economy has plunged into this double-dip recession. It is self-evident that providing financial assistance to infrastructure projects in the UK will provide a much greater stimulus to the British economy than giving financial assistance to projects abroad. Projects in the UK will boost employment in Britain; providing assistance to overseas projects will not.

Conservative Governments have a dubious record when it comes to underwriting foreign construction schemes. I am referring not only to the most recent, and much vaunted, export enterprise finance guarantee scheme, which assisted only five firms and has now folded because it was such a flop. I am also thinking of historic occasions such as that relating to the Pergau dam in Malaysia, which involved a too-close relationship between the aid being given to a foreign country and the trade that was taking place, particularly in relation to arms exports. It is very important that we learn the lessons from past failures when it comes to finance for foreign infrastructure schemes, and we particularly need to start prioritising schemes here in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

I would not want the amendment to have that particular effect, and I do not think it need have it, especially if the Government were in a position to frame the legislation in such a way as to see this potential £50 billion focused very much on the needs of our own people in our own country. I hear what my hon. Friend says, but I do not think this is the be-all-and-end-all of Treasury expenditure, as there are other ways and means of dealing with those few projects that might have a cross-border character. When it comes to the underwriting capacity of this particular Bill, we think it important to prioritise investment here at home.

[Barry Gardiner]

My hon. Friend will be aware that the perimeter of Northern Ireland is defined as the six counties, and that the continental shelf offshore was never included in the original agreement drawn up by the Foreign Office. [Interruption.] I realise that my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) knows this only too well. What that means is that we need clarity in respect not only of amendment 11, but of the “Short title, commencement and extent” provisions. At the moment, the Bill would preclude offshore wind development from the Northern Ireland coast. These matters may seem abstruse, but as constituted, the Bill does not make it clear that such infrastructure development would qualify for support. That question is as much one for the Minister as for my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), but it seems to me that the question needs to be answered.

[Chris Leslie]

I am not sure I agree with my hon. Friend on the particular example he provided. It is quite clear that there would be benefit for the economy within the UK if those offshore schemes proceeded. The frustration I have is with the rather hasty drafting. Yes, we accept that it is necessary to frame a scheme that has sufficient flexibility, but there are dangers in enacting legislation that does not focus sufficiently on significant financial schemes, employment and jobs here in the UK. That is the purpose of the amendment.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between Barry Gardiner and Chris Leslie

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

Indeed. Were it possible under the rules of order for the Opposition to table an amendment to increase the bank levy rate, we probably would have done so. However, we were unable to do so because of the slightly arcane rules of order. We need to examine the rationale behind the rate chosen by the Minister and understand why the Government moved from a threshold approach to triggering the bank levy, to a tax-free allowance of a certain amount before which banks would pay against the chargeable liabilities of the bank levy.

We also need to understand whether the bank levy is, as my hon. Friend suggests, an adequate step when considered in the context of the wider economy and public finances. Ultimately, we need to understand whether the Treasury is being straight with the public and honest about the taxes that the banks will pay over the years ahead. We have debated the Government’s approach to the banking sector before, and we look forward to the final report of the Vickers commission on the state of competition and regulation of the banks so that never again can these institutions take such extreme risks and gambles that land in the lap of the taxpayer when the going gets tough, as they did before the credit crunch.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The Government are seeking to take £2.5 billion in revenue from the tax that they have imposed, but has my hon. Friend assessed the corporation tax reductions that the banks will experience, which are thought to be £100 million this year? Has he projected the figure by the end of the Parliament? Can we arrive at a net figure to see the real impact of the Government’s policy?

[Chris Leslie]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely prescient intervention, because the Chancellor, under pressure from the Opposition, had to cave in to a concession on corporation tax in the March Budget. The Government announced the bank levy last June, so we knew that they would be introducing this tax, yet the corporation tax cuts will clearly benefit the banks significantly. The Treasury claims that in the March Budget it offset the benefit that the banks will apparently get as a result of the reduction in corporation tax rates, but we will have to wait to see whether the slight increase in the bank levy—around £100 million—introduced in the Budget will be sufficient to offset the full corporation tax cuts that the banks will enjoy over the lifetime of this Parliament. I recall that the written answer to a question I tabled on the predicted benefits to the banks of the corporation tax reductions suggested that that would be about £100 million in year one, £200 million in year two, £300 million in year three, and so on, but that largely reflects the reductions in corporation tax rates. That is something of a moot point, because we contend that the design of the bank levy is insufficient. Today’s debate should provide an opportunity to seek proper redress for the crisis and ensure that we put the banks on a fair tax basis, but that is not what the Government are seeking with this pathetically small bank levy proposal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

My hon. Friend is entirely right, and that is why we have to take a step back and look at the context of today’s debate. The Government are clearly still on the side of the big banks at a time not just when the living standards and wages of ordinary people are being frozen or reduced, but when vital public services are being slashed. Indeed, it is worth reminding ourselves of the consequences of the cuts that the Government are pursuing.

Teaching assistants, youth workers, library staff and lollipop ladies are being made redundant; binmen, street cleaners, environmental health officers and park keepers are disappearing from our neighbourhoods; police detectives, forensic scientists, 999 operatives and police community support officers are no longer affordable in the fight against crime; and hospital cleaners, nurses, paramedics and ward clerks are having their posts eradicated when the NHS needs them more than ever. How dare Ministers say that we are all in this together when they take such a weak and feeble approach to the banks.

[Barry Gardiner]

My hon. Friend seeks to use an argument based on contrast, but there is also an argument based on causality. In his remarks, it has to be made clear that the causal relationship between the misery that some people will suffer over the next few years and the actions of some bankers is very real. There is real disquiet in the House about the Government’s proposal not just because some people are doing well and some are doing less well, but because, given that contrast, there is a causal relationship for those people doing badly.

[Chris Leslie]

Absolutely, and, as we have heard time and again, Government Members clearly do not understand the causes of the deficit, so they are not the right people to solve it. If they understood and acknowledged that the banks played a significant role in causing the deficit, maybe—just maybe—we would take up their suggestions on how we go forward, but they choose to ignore the role that the banks played—[Laughter.] If the hon. Members for Chippenham (Duncan Hames) and for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) think that the banks did not play a role in the deficit, we will all be interested to hear from them, but surely they have to acknowledge that point.

The bonus pools and pots continue to be significant, however, and some bankers receive obscene, life-changing sums of money, so we do not really need to worry too much about poor banking executives; we should worry about those who depend on vital services but will now go without as a result of Ministers’ choices.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

May I make a little progress? Time is short.

As a result of European Union reforms championed by Labour Members of the European Parliament who tried their best to restrain some of the excess, some bank bonuses must now be deferred and given in the form of shares. Bankers cannot take them in cash immediately. However, the Minister needs to explain why he is counteracting those bonus deferral arrangements by introducing a loophole in new section 554H, in schedule 2, allowing a concession to bankers whose bonuses are paid largely in the form of shares rather than cash. Rather than having to pay the tax at the point at which the bonus is awarded, they will need only to pay it on a date down the line when the shares are sold, possibly avoiding the current 50p rate of tax. The Sunday Times wrote about that last weekend. There is speculation that the Chancellor will cut the 50p rate at some point, and that, as a result of the Minister’s reforms, bankers will be allowed to wait and to avoid it. Can the Minister explain why he has made that valuable concession?

[Barry Gardiner]

Will my hon. Friend clarify the chronology? Subsection (1)(d) of new section 554H states that the section applies if

“the vesting date is not more than five years after the award date”.

Does he believe that the Government are certain to reduce the 50p rate within the lifetime of this Parliament?

[Chris Leslie]

I do not know whether we have to hope that the Liberal Democrats will take strong action before that moment comes—I do not know whether that is an oxymoron—but the Government have dangled the prospect of a tax cut for only the very richest people. It is interesting that they are designing the Bill’s provisions to allow the potential avoidance of the 50p rate following what I considered to be a fairly positive change at European level to defer bonuses in an attempt to discourage short-term high-risk activities.

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Debate between Barry Gardiner and Chris Leslie

Tuesday 23rd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner]

Will my hon. Friend none the less acknowledge that the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) made a pertinent suggestion? She identified the phase of business development that could give maximum benefit to the Treasury—when very small businesses are growing into small to medium-sized businesses, rather than when businesses are growing from zero to micro.

[Chris Leslie]

Perhaps I got the wrong end of the stick from the hon. Member for Newton Abbot when she made that pertinent point about micro-businesses. The Bill perhaps does not capture the benefit to the economy that small businesses have in that phase of their development. I hope that she will be a member of the Public Bill Committee that considers the Bill, although interestingly, as has been pointed out, perhaps some of the questioning from Government Members might prevent them—mysteriously—from being selected for membership of that Committee. We shall see.

The Prime Minister said before the general election that VAT is

“very regressive, it hits the poorest the hardest, it does, I absolutely promise you”.

The Government have chosen a path that will hit employment, jobs and businesses very hard indeed. That should be borne in mind when we consider the Bill. It is odd that this Bill is separate from either of the Finance Bills. I have not quite figured out the Government’s tactics, and perhaps they had not quite worked out what they were going to do. In that wider context, it is necessary to compare their choices in VAT against the national insurance changes.

Hon. Members mostly spoke about part 2 of the Bill, which includes the concept of a national insurance holiday. Such a holiday is, of course, superficially attractive, but there are reasons to be concerned about the poor design of the measure, which applies only to new businesses and not to existing firms. That is important. Many businesses could be under the misapprehension that they will qualify, and a lot of effort and time will go into contacting Business Link and the Treasury to find out whether the measure applies to them, and many will be disappointed.

The proposal is complex because of the limited time and extent of the scheme. It applies only to a small number of employees and there is a convoluted application process. Government Members pointed out that efforts need to made to ensure that the measure is as simple as possible. The Bill will require HMRC to take on 240 extra staff—I am not sure that they will be additional staff, especially given that HMRC is cutting numbers—and we will press the Minister on that extra complement in Committee. Businesses could apply for the national insurance holiday but not get it because they have to swim for hours through treacle to get someone in the Treasury to pick up the phone. That could be a significant problem.

The Minister gave a vague figure when asked how many people had applied since the scheme started in September. Very few people are aware that the scheme exists, and it has hardly been advertised—[Interruption.] I am glad that Liberal Democrat Members have joined us in the Chamber, even if they are just passing through, because they have been conspicuous by their absence. Perhaps that is related to their embarrassment over the VAT comparator.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), who highlighted the discriminatory nature of the national insurance holiday proposal—it affects some parts of the country but not others—and my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) and for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) pointed out the unfairness of a crude system that will exclude the east of England, London and the greater south-east, as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South called it. That will cause significant disquiet, and many new entrepreneurs in those parts of the country will complain. Legitimately, they will not understand why they are excluded while reasonably affluent areas of the country outside the greater south-east—Chester, Worcester, Harrogate, York Outer, Tatton and Richmond, to name areas at random—will be eligible for the benefits. My hon. Friend put things perfectly when he said that the boffins at the Treasury ought to be capable of understanding the distinction between the greater south-east and other parts of the country. Of course they are capable of that, and we will seek to make amendments to deal with that problem in Committee.

Unfortunately, this small and partial measure—a national insurance holiday for some businesses in some parts of the country—reveals first of all the Government’s complete failure to develop a regional growth strategy, especially for the English regions. They have taken the knife not only to regional development agencies, but more importantly to the budgets at their disposal to help to build SMEs and provide the infrastructure necessary for businesses to survive. We know that for every £1 spent through the auspices of RDAs, £4.50 of benefits accrued to the regional economies. The Government disregarded evidence from the National Audit Office. They have damaged the prospects for growth in our economy, but particularly in those parts of it that have not benefited from the historic engine of growth that has surrounded London and the south-east. The Government’s alternative —these local enterprise partnerships, which are unfunded, and only partially covering the country—is a poor substitute for a proper regional economic strategy. Nearly 21 million people and 780,000 businesses will not be covered by the LEPs, the Business Secretary has described them as “chaotic”, and Richard Lambert of the CBI has called the process a “bit of a shambles”.

That sums up the Government’s lack of a growth strategy. We know that they have pulled the rug from under the growth White Paper that was meant to be forthcoming. They did that because they have no clear idea of how to drive growth: they are fixated on austerity alone and have no solutions for the long-term course of our economy. That is a great pity. The regional growth fund has been hacked down to a pathetic size, with few opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises to apply for support under it. In many ways, therefore, small firms have been cast to one side, with perhaps a few crumbs from the table made available for them as a result of this Marie-Antoinette strategy of the Ministers—“Let them eat cake” seems to be the approach they are willing to take.

The hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) rightly pointed out that the Government should be trying to make the banks lend more and give more support to SMEs, making inroads into that desert of loan and credit available to them. We know from the Chancellor’s statement at Treasury questions last week and from Ministers’ comments that they have gone soft on the banks in a number of ways, particularly on the coalition commitment to restart net lending targets for the banks in which they have a shareholding. They have decided now to row back from their commitment to institute those net lending targets, and I urge hon. Members, particularly Government Members, to ask serious questions of Ministers about why they are not prepared to ensure that the banks play their full part in repairing the economy.

I would not like to think that we cannot trust the Chancellor to fulfil some of the pledges to lessen the impact of these national insurance increases. As we know, the Government have already reneged on the commitment on employee national insurance changes, even though the press reported before the election that the Conservative party would do so. It is true that in many ways the personal allowance changes deal with some of these elements, but only in part—there was a commitment on national insurance as well, but it folded and absorbed it into that change. Again, it raised people’s hopes before the general election, but has not fulfilled them.

In particular, the Government are not fully offsetting these changes for employers, which will be a surprise to many people. Before the election, the Conservative party gave the impression that it was fully against the 1% increase and that it would repeal it entirely. [Interruption.] Ministers seem to think that they were going to repeal it entirely. As I see the measures, the impression they gave—[Interruption.] There was small print, it is true, but that was not the impression given. The £4.5 billion change is offset by the £3.1 billion increase in the threshold for employers on national insurance, so there is a deficit of £1.4 billion in the compensation that the Government will not be giving to employers. This is a question not necessarily of a broken promise, but of an impression that many people had that the Government were going to end the jobs tax, as the Prime Minister and Chancellor characterised it. As ever with this Government, however, when we look at the small print, we see that those changes will not be forthcoming.

We have not seen the secondary legislation yet. I would like to know when the Minister will introduce it. Presumably on Monday—traditionally the time of what was the pre-Budget report—we will hear from the Chancellor about the threshold changes and the indexation elements of these changes. Ministers have said they are going to add £21 to the employer threshold, but what will be the indexation? Will they follow the long-standing traditions of the Rooker-Wise amendment when it comes to allowance and threshold changes and follow the retail prices index option, or will they row back again and go for the cheaper consumer prices index option? In other words, will they be giving with one hand, through the threshold change, but taking with the other, by only opting for CPI?

This debate has revealed significant concerns among Government Members about the crude discrimination shown against London, the south-east and the east of England. The Bill reveals a lack of a proper strategy for growth, especially in the English regions, and the Government have revealed their preference for regressive taxation, particularly VAT, which will harm businesses and raise unemployment. We will certainly need to see serious improvements in these measures in Committee.

Finance Bill

Debate between Barry Gardiner and Chris Leslie

Monday 12th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

I am grateful, Mr Benton, that you have seen fit to allow a stand part debate on this important clause, especially at a time when every measure in the Finance Bill and the Budget as enacted needs sufficient scrutiny to ensure that the general public can have confidence in the fact that any revenue forgone is forgone for a good purpose. At a time when our public services are threatened and look set to be cut so significantly, it is very important that, if this country is to give away potential yield through changes such as the corporation tax, this is done for the right reasons.

It is important to note that we want a healthy economy and for our companies, by and large, to be profitable and doing well. I do not, of course, want to revisit in too much detail our debate on the banking sector, but I point out that it is necessary to have an environment in which our companies can be competitive on a global scale, and to ensure that they can succeed. While we want companies to be profitable, we also want them to reinvest a lot of those profits, so that they can improve the capital stock, improve the ingenuity and enterprising innovation that goes on within such companies, and have a longer-term profitability trajectory. It is for those reasons that I am perplexed by the drastic reduction in capital allowances, to just £25,000. Manufacturing companies—the institutions that produce the actual goods we can sell and export abroad—may well be disadvantaged relative to other sectors of the economy.

[Barry Gardiner]

Is my hon. Friend aware of the predicated growth, contained in the Government’s figures, of the private sector generation of income into the Treasury over the next five years, and does he believe that that is compatible with the reduction in capital allowances that has been announced? In particular, would he care to comment on the timing of that reduction at precisely the moment when—if the Chancellor’s figures were to work out—the economy would be about to see the largest part of its expansion?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

Indeed that is the case. I know that my hon. Friend has done a great deal of work on some of the analysis of these points. There are arguments to be made for reducing corporation tax to boost competitiveness, but clearly that is a way of encouraging profit-taking and, in turn, the removal of money from companies in the form of dividends. That, of course, benefits us all in some ways, because we are all members of pension funds and so on. However, if it is indeed the Government’s particular choice at this point in time, as we are coming out of a recession, to try to encourage companies to focus on their long-term profitability, might it not be a better strategy, in some respects, to retain some of those capital allowances to ensure that we can fix our banks such that they are able to supply much-needed credit to small companies, in particular, and to the wider industries across the board?

[Barry Gardiner]

My hon. Friend rightly talks about the need for companies to pay dividends and the benefits of that for all of us in society, in particular pension fund holders. Does he appreciate that the portfolio of shares that our pension funds all hold can also increase in value by incentivising companies to reinvest in themselves? That happens by the increase in value of the company through the increased investment that it has made in itself. Is that not a more efficient way of doing things than paying out dividends, which may simply go into private pockets for consumption?

[Chris Leslie]

That is a moot point and I would not go to the wall to argue against reducing corporation tax in this way. All I am suggesting is that there are other strategies that I do not feel that the Government have properly explored. We ought to be focused on growth and on how business can contribute to it. Let us not forget that we have such a deficit situation in this country not because of so-called excessive public service consumption but because tax receipts have been so depressed. That has partly been caused by the credit crunch and the lack of credit available, which provoked the private sector investment strike that has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett).