European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Catherine McKinnell and Charlie Elphicke

3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 3rd sitting: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 8th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Elphicke]

No, not at the moment.

It is in the interests of Britain and the European Union that we construct a frictionless border, and that is why I am also in discussions with the authorities in Calais. It is in the interests of Britain and France, of Dover and Calais, and of the United Kingdom and the European Union that we ensure that this works. We need to embrace electronic bills of lading, risk-based checking and audits in workplaces. We need to treat the border as a tax point rather than as a hard place with border posts. That is a further answer to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). That is how we can ensure that we continue to have frictionless trade even if we have to leave the customs union. On that note, and given your injunction, Sir Roger, I shall conclude my remarks so that others may speak.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to new clause 163, which stands in my name and would require the Government to publish a strategy for properly consulting the English regions, including those without directly elected mayors. We are getting ever closer to the Prime Minister’s self-imposed 31 March deadline for invoking article 50, but a question that I put to the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union on 17 January remains unanswered.

To remind the House—and the Secretary of State, who is in his place—I asked him what discussions he had held with key stakeholders in the north-east about the effects of leaving the single market, given that 58% of our region’s exports go to the EU. I received an entirely unsatisfactory response to that question, and I remain concerned that the Government have ruled out membership of the single market before negotiations have even begun and without properly consulting those parts of the country likely to be most affected by this move.

Even more worrying is the fact that, despite the publication of the Government’s White Paper last week, we are still no closer to knowing what role representatives from all the regions of England, including the north-east, will play in informing the Government’s negotiating strategy and objectives. Instead, we have been provided with this entirely meaningless statement:

“In seeking such a future, we will look to secure the specific interests of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as well as those of all parts of England.”

Childcare Payments Bill

Debate between Catherine McKinnell and Charlie Elphicke

Monday 14th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I want to begin by saying that the Opposition welcome any new investment in child care and any extra support for the millions of hard-pressed people—parents and families—up and down the country who are battling to juggle their work and family lives. We are the party that, in government, set the precedent for investing in early years and supporting the families that needed help the most and, as a result, tackling disadvantage and improving the life chances of children. Of course, those are aims and priorities that all political parties now accept, thanks to the progress that was made in that area under the last Labour Government. Welcome though any support is, however, the Bill still falls far short of the mark when it comes to making up the ground that has been lost under this Conservative-led Government in regard to meeting and furthering those goals.

Since 2010, all parents have seen reduced support, fewer child care places and spiralling child care costs. We know that families up and down the country are struggling with this. Investing in early years and focusing support on those families that needed help the most are among the greatest legacies of the last Labour Government, and those principles are now universally accepted by all parties of government. Under Labour, parents benefited from a range of policies and investments that helped more parents, but particularly single mothers, into work and lifted more children out of poverty. As a result, more children were given a better start in life.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Does the hon. Lady accept that, according to the measure adopted by the previous Labour Government, child poverty actually rose under that Administration, and that it has fallen under this Government?

[Catherine McKinnell]

No, I do not accept that. It is tempting for Government Members to quibble about measures and markers, and I know that a lot of time has been spent arguing about how to measure child poverty instead of recognising the desperate increase in it. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has projected that there will be 1 million more children in poverty by 2015 than there were in 2010. Government Members need to be careful when obsessing and arguing about those measurements while ignoring the reality, which is that hundreds of thousands more children are now living in homes that their parents cannot afford to heat, and struggling in households where their parents cannot afford to put food on the table and are using food banks.

When we look back on Labour’s record in government, we are proud of the introduction of the Sure Start local programmes and the subsequent huge expansion of Sure Start centres up and down the country. We are proud of the free part-time nursery education that we introduced for all three and four-year-olds. We are proud of the more affordable and higher-quality child care that we brought in through the employer-supported child care voucher scheme, and of the child care tax credits and the introduction of the early years curriculum. We are also proud of the increased financial support for families with children, including the introduction of tax credits and the increases in child benefit and maternity pay and grants. Those policies and changes were aimed at giving every child the best possible start in life but, perhaps more importantly, they lifted 1 million children out of relative poverty and more than 2 million children out of absolute poverty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

I do not recognise what the hon. Lady is saying. If she is saying that that is happening in her area, I would be interested to see the data to back that up. We know that 35,000 fewer child care places are available and that prices are rising. Parents out there are struggling with the cost of child care—indeed, the Government accept that it is a challenge for many households up and down the country—and I think that they would find it deeply disconcerting to hear an hon. Member suggest that prices are falling and that everything is fine. Government Members seem to be very detached from the reality that families are facing up and down the country.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the hon. Lady tell the House how the number of childminders changed under the previous Government? Does she accept some responsibility for what amounted to a war on childminders by the Labour party?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is reading that argument from a Whip’s handout, although I know it is one that Government Members like to quote. The Professional Association for Childcare and Early Years, which I would trust more than I would trust the hon. Gentleman on this subject, has commented specifically on that issue, stating that that statistic has often been quoted in the past few months but it is not one that it recognises. The association does not recognise the statistics that the Government are trying to use to establish the case that Labour let the country down on child care. The reality and experience of households and families up and down the country is that Labour has a proud record of supporting families with children to get into work and with the costs associated with child care, and of ensuring there are enough child care places—certainly not the reduction of 35,000 places that we have seen since the Government took office.

[Charlie Elphicke]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

Does the hon. Gentleman wish to come back and dispute again what the Professional Association for Childcare and Early Years says?

[Charlie Elphicke]

For clarity, I did not speak from some handout. I have been concerned about this issue for a long time, and I garnered research from the House of Commons Library which sets out the official statistics on numbers of childminders. Those numbers were massively reduced under the previous Government, which caused a lot of difficulties for families that I represent in Dover and Deal who are hard pressed and find it hard to afford more expensive child care options.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will look again at his House of Commons Library note and explain in his contribution why we have seen 3,000 fewer childminder places since the Government took office. Overall, there is a worrying trend of reducing child care places and rising child care prices, and he will understand that basic economics mean that households up and down the country are struggling to deal with the cost of child care. Many households—particularly women—are making the choice to stay at home because it is simply unaffordable to go out to work.

The Minister spoke passionately about the increasing number of women in work, but she will acknowledge that there is a lot more work to do on that and we still fall behind on maternal employment in OECD comparisons. We need to make progress on that so that parents who want to work can do so and so that child care is affordable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. We need reassurance from the Government that they have considered the data from experiences in other parts of the globe. Examples show that dealing only with the demand side, supporting parents with child care costs, simply increases the price of child care for families rather than bringing it down. Ultimately, that costs parents and the Government more, because they end up forking out more for a smaller number of child care places.

There seems to be a huge debate about the figures, but official figures show 35,000 fewer child care places across the country. In my region of the north-east alone, we have lost more than 5,000 places. Even the coalition’s flagship offer for two-year-olds, which is due to be extended in October, has floundered, with the child care Minister, the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), admitting last November that 38,000 of the 20% most disadvantaged two-year-olds—38,000 out of 130,000—did not have the places to which they were entitled. In May 2014, she updated the House on progress, with 10% of the most disadvantaged two-year-olds still without places. Perhaps most worrying of all is that there are 536 fewer Sure Start children’s centres than there were in 2010—an average loss of three a week. That is the figure we have, but the Minister removed the online database last autumn. Perhaps she will comment on this. I would have thought that, given her professed interest in supporting families and dealing with these issues, there would be a desire to continue to monitor the number of child care and Sure Start places available. It is alarming that we can no longer keep track of the figures on the Government website.

In addition to all that, parents have seen the Conservative Government give a £3 billion tax cut to the top 1% of earners, more than three quarters of whom are men. At the same time, parents have seen cuts of £15 billion. Support to families to balance their work and family life, such as tax credits, child benefit, maternity grant allowances and statutory maternity pay, has been reduced. The reductions to tax credits alone have meant that some families have lost up to £1,560 a year, while the House of Commons Library estimates that families with newborn children could be up to £1,725 worse off over the initial two years.

New analysis of the households below average income statistics published earlier this month shows that under this Government it is families with children who have seen the biggest falls in their income, relative to those without children. Since 2009-10, a couple with two children aged five and 14 are on average £2,132 a year worse off in real terms. In contrast, a couple with no children are £1,404 a year worse off. A single person with two children aged five and 14 is on average £1,664 worse off, compared with a single person with no children, who is £936 a year worse off. We know that everybody is worse off, but families with children in particular are bearing the brunt. These figures only reflect tax and benefit changes, and the impact of wages falling relative to prices has left working people on average £600 a year worse off since 2010.

Even more worrying is that new research published last week by the Resolution Foundation suggests that the official statistics may well have underestimated the fall in living standards, because they take no account of the wages of the self-employed. The fall in wages could be between 20% and 30% greater than originally thought. As we know, this could prove particularly relevant to women’s experiences, because according to the Office for National Statistics, women have made up more than half of the growth in the number of self-employed since 2008.

We must not forget that the true impact of this coalition Government’s failure is felt not just by parents, but by their children. The latest HBAI figures show that the progress Labour made in lifting more than 1 million children out of poverty has ground to a halt. Equally worrying, the number of children living in what is deemed to be material deprivation is on the rise, with 300,000 more children living in families that cannot afford to keep their house warm, 400,000 more children living in families that cannot afford to make savings of £10 a month, and half a million or more families unable to afford to replace broken electrical goods. Worst of all, a forecast by the Institute for Fiscal Studies indicates that while Ministers and, clearly, their Back Benchers squabble over how to adequately define child poverty, which seems to be a distraction from their failure to deal with it, almost 1 million more children will be living in poverty in 2020.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The hon. Lady challenged me on my figures. In a House of Commons Library note, taken from the Department for Education and Skills statistical volume, there were 365,000 childminder places in 1997, but by 2010 that number had fallen to 280,000. Does she recognise that that is a really poor record on child care with childminders?

[Catherine McKinnell]

The hon. Gentleman seems to have gone off the subject of child poverty, which is what we were dealing with. Going back to childminders, there was some movement in respect of the database of those registered when the Ofsted registration system came into place. If he is suggesting that he does not support Ofsted registration, I would be interested to hear more of his views.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

The Government need to reassure us over NS&I’s ability to provide this contract and to tell us whether services will be provided by Atos, especially as Atos’s delivery of universal credit and personal independence payments has been such a shambles. With just a year to go, it is important that Ministers get a grip and make some decisions. As with universal credit, any further delays in implementation will only hurt hard-pressed families who are already struggling with the cost of child care bills.

Let me turn briefly to our proposals for investing in child care which, on top of what the Government are providing today, would deliver a real difference to hard-pressed families who are struggling with the child care crunch. We have said that we will build on previous efforts and extend free child care for three and four-year-olds from 15 to 25 hours a week for working parents. We will give parents peace of mind by setting down in law a guarantee that they can access wrap-around child care—from 8 am to 6 pm— through their local school, if and when they want it.

As with the 15-hour early years entitlement, introduced under the previous Labour Government, the new 25-hour offer would be for 38 weeks of the year, which would mean more than £1,500 of extra support per child per year. It would not demand that working parents spend more and more of their own money on child care in order to receive some cash back from the Government, as this Bill will demand of them. Regardless of what working parents of three and four-years-olds choose to spend on child care, they will be entitled to 25 hours a week for 38 weeks of the year.

We know that having school-age children can be a logistical nightmare for many parents, and that too many of them find it increasingly difficult to find after-school and before-school child care. According to a Department for Education survey last year, 62% of parents of school-age children said that they needed some form of before-and-after school care or holiday care to combine family and work, but of these, nearly three out of 10 of them were unable to find it. That is why Labour will introduce a primary child care guarantee to benefit parents of primary age children, because that is when families most require child care support.

[Charlie Elphicke]

rose—

[Catherine McKinnell]

I will not give way, as I must make progress.

In conclusion, while we welcome any extra investment in child care, the Bill does not make up for how much more families are paying for child care under this Tory-led Government, and it confirms that no help will arrive for parents facing a child care crunch for at least another 14 months. Families have already seen their child care costs rise five times faster than pay. Many already spend more on their child care than on their mortgage. Parents have seen the number of child care places fall by the thousands, and, despite the Prime Minister’s promises to the contrary, too many communities have seen their local Sure Start children’s centres close.

Most stay-at-home mums, as well as working parents, have already said that child care costs are the biggest barriers to their either going back to work or increasing their hours. Working parents and families need help now, not in 14 months’ time. But equally importantly, Ministers need to come clean over who will benefit from this scheme and by how much, so that parents can make an informed decision about which form of support will be most appropriate for them.

We will support the Bill’s Second Reading as we welcome the additional support for families because we know how much they are struggling, but we will scrutinise every detail to get the answers to the questions that we put today, as there are many areas in which the Government are not being up front. Critically, this Bill falls far short of what is needed to make up for the last four years of spiralling costs, falling child care places and cuts to vital support for families. Parents deserve better than that, which is why the next Labour Government will extend free child care for all three and four-year-olds as well as introducing a primary child care guarantee to give parents peace of mind.

Finance Bill

Debate between Catherine McKinnell and Charlie Elphicke

Wednesday 2nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

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

New clause 10 takes us back to 2010 and the heady first few months of this Government. It takes us back to a time when the coalition, having inherited a growing economy from the Labour Government, choked that recovery off by adopting an anti-growth, short-termist, short-sighted approach to supporting business and jobs. As hon. Members will be aware, one of the Chancellor’s first moves in government was to announce in the June 2010 Budget that he was cutting Labour’s annual investment allowance. The new clause asks the Government to undertake a proper review of the impact on business investment of that terrible decision. We need to learn the lessons from that dreadful mistake.

Before we consider the new clause in more detail I want to remind hon. Members of the background to this important issue. The annual investment allowance was announced as part of the 2007 Budget by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown). It was introduced as part of a package of reforms to enhance Britain’s international competitiveness, encourage investment and promote innovation and growth. The new allowance replaced first-year capital allowances and meant that from April 2008, under the Labour Government, businesses were able to offset up to 100% of expenditure on general plant and machinery in any given year against taxable profits, up to a limit of £50,000.

We recognised the value of this important allowance to companies up and down the country in supporting them to invest for the long term, and in helping them to create and safeguard jobs. That is why Labour took the decision to double it as part of a series of measures announced in the March 2010 Budget—in order to

“support start-ups and small and medium sized enterprises…to position the UK as a leading centre for research and innovation, and to ensure that the UK is equipped with skills for growth and the infrastructure it needs to be successful in a low-carbon economy.”

The March 2010 Red Book stated:

“In order to provide further cash flow support and an incentive to increase business investment, the Government will increase the threshold of the AIA to £100,000 for expenditure incurred from April 2010.”

That announcement was hugely welcome to businesses up and down the country.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady say what the allowance is today—is it £100,000 or has it gone up?

[Catherine McKinnell]

We are still at 2010; we will get to the present day in due course, but the hon. Gentleman seems to miss the point somewhat. Obviously, the Conservative party would like to airbrush out the unpleasant blip in 2010, when it almost abolished the investment allowance, and all the impacts that flowed from that, which were evident from the fall in business investment. That is the point that our new clause reinforces. The decision taken at that time was terrible. I do not know what the thinking was behind it—whether it had been planned for a long time by the Conservatives while they were in opposition, or whether it was simply a case of spitefully thinking, “It’s a Labour policy, so we will reverse it”—but it had catastrophic implications. As the hon. Gentleman’s question indicates, they had to think again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

Once again, Conservative Members, and indeed the Minister, want to brush over this inconvenient part of their so-called plan. They clearly made a bad decision in 2010. The purpose of the new clause is to show that. If the reduction in the annual investment allowance was offset by the reduction in corporation tax, as the Minister argues, why did they revisit the decision and increase the allowance again? That would not have been necessary if their only plan for supporting business up and down the country, which was to reduce corporation tax, had been successful. We supported that plan, but it was not enough on its own to offset the damaging uncertainty created by slashing the annual investment allowance from £100,000 to £25,000 in one fell swoop.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the hon. Lady rule out an increase in corporation tax under the next Labour Government, should one ever be elected—yes or no?

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

We are not discussing that.

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point: that is not what we are discussing. However, I am interested to know whether the hon. Gentleman will rule out slashing the annual investment allowance with no notice if the Conservatives are re-elected in 2015. Will he confirm that—yes or no?

[Charlie Elphicke]

I hate to disappoint the hon. Lady, but I am not part of the Government. It is not for me, a Back Bencher, to rule anything in or out. I am proud that the Government have set the annual investment allowance at £250,000 and have massively reduced corporation tax. That is really great for business.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend raises an important point, and that is the first time we have heard a Government Minister confirm that this is a temporary measure. I think that reinforces the argument in the new clause, which is that we should analyse the impact of the various changes to the AIA, year on year—it has gone up, down and all around—on businesses and their investment decisions. Hopefully, that will inform any decisions on the allowance, whether by a future Conservative Government or, as is more likely, a future Labour Government.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The temporary nature of the investment allowance is clearly set out in a press release issued on 1 January 2013, and I am staggered that the hon. Lady says this is the first time she knew about it. The Labour party ought to brief itself better than that.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Well, it simply reinforces the impression—in fact, the reality—that the Government are perfectly well disposed to chopping and changing their policy and approach to the annual investment allowance. That is the point we are trying to make, and the point behind the new clause. The Government should stop and take a look. I have heard from businesses that they would rather have no investment allowance than have chopping and changing of the AIA, because that can be destabilising for investment decisions. They would rather have a more stable approach to policy making than that being displayed by the Government.

Returning to the history of the investment allowance, the previous Labour Government doubled it, recognising its importance to giving businesses confidence to invest for the future, and to be supported within the tax system to make such decisions. What happened after it was doubled? We know that, in his infinite wisdom, the Chancellor decided as part of his emergency Budget—or so he called it—in June 2010, to announce to great fanfare that the annual investment allowance would be cut. However, it would not just be cut. At a time when the economy was growing after the financial crisis, the Chancellor decided that the best way to secure the recovery and back British businesses and jobs was to slash the annual investment allowance to just £25,000 from April 2012, as in the Finance Act 2011. He sought to reassure us that the impact of that reduction from £100,000 to £25,000 would be limited because:

“Over 95% of businesses will continue to have all their qualifying plant and machinery expenditure fully covered by this relief.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 175.]

In other words, the Chancellor believed in June 2010 that only 5% of firms were receiving any benefit from the annual investment allowance. HMRC’s tax information note at the time stated:

“Over 95 per cent of businesses are expected to be unaffected as any qualifying capital expenditure will be fully covered by the new level of AIA (£25,000).”

It went on to clarify that

“between 100,000 and 200,000 businesses will have annual capital expenditure of over £25,000”.

Therefore, in the Chancellor’s terms, only 5% of businesses would have been affected by his decision to slash the allowance. In anyone else’s terms, however, that is somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 firms. That is a significant number of businesses that are employing—or potentially employing—a significant number of people, while also indirectly supporting employment through their supply chains. That seems to ring true of the Government’s approach because when they speak about being pro-business, they seem to forget the many businesses out there that do not fit the Tory vision of what businesses are, and it seems that those 100,000 or 200,000 firms did not feature on the Chancellor’s radar.

Let us remind ourselves briefly of some of the views expressed at the time about the decision the Chancellor took. The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies commented that losers from the cut

“would be those firms with capital intensive operations—with long lasting equipment and machinery—that currently benefit most from the capital allowances. While this is likely to apply to more firms in the manufacturing and transport sectors, it may also be true for some capital intensive service sector firms.”

A senior economist at the manufacturers association, the Engineering Employers Federation, said that financing cuts to corporation tax by

“cuts to investment allowances will be a heavy price to pay, especially for smaller companies. It might be a positive signal for large companies, but not for their suppliers.”

In evidence to the Treasury Committee on the June 2010 Budget, John Whiting, then tax policy director at the Chartered Institute of Taxation and now director of the Office of Tax Simplification, expressed his concern that the measure would particularly hit medium-sized firms.

The June 2010 Budget cut the annual investment allowance to £25,000 from April 2012 on the grounds that, in the Chancellor’s view, only 5% of firms would be affected. We then had two autumn statements and two Budgets, at which we put these arguments to the Government, before the Chancellor announced in the autumn statement 2012, again to great fanfare, that he would “temporarily” increase the AIA—the one he had just cut to £25,000—to £250,000 from January 2013.

What happened to business investment between the June 2010 Budget and the 2012 autumn statement that drove the Chancellor to move from feeling perfectly comfortable in slashing the annual investment allowance, because more than 95% of businesses would be unaffected, to announcing in 2012 a significant increase in the AIA to £250,000? Let us cast our minds back to what the Chancellor said when he announced that decision in autumn 2012. He said he was increasing the annual investment allowance because:

“It is a huge boost to all those who run a business and who aspire to grow, expand and create jobs.”—[Official Report, 5 December 2012; Vol. 554, c. 881.]

What exactly does that say about the Chancellor’s cavalier approach back in 2010? Surely the complete opposite—[Interruption.] I see Government Members rolling their eyes, but unfortunately they need to face the truth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

I think the hon. Gentleman is rather confused. The purpose of the allowance is to enable companies to invest and to take advantage of tax support. If they are not able to take advantage of the annual investment allowance, there is no cost to the taxpayer, so why chop and change the regime and create uncertainty? Businesses need, from one year to the next, to be able to project and say, “This year we cannot afford to make an investment, but next year we can afford to invest so much in plant and machinery and we will be able to offset so much of that against tax.” The Government, however, have been chopping and changing the allowance. Companies cannot make long-term investment decisions from one year to the next without knowing exactly what their tax position will be.

The hon. Gentleman is actually making a very good argument for new clause 10 and I will be very surprised if he does not support us in the Lobby this afternoon. He speculates on companies that may or may not be able to invest and take advantage of the annual investment allowance. Our new clause asks the Government to undertake a proper review of the impact of slashing the annual investment allowance and then increasing it on a temporary basis. Many businesses have said to me—I am sure they have said it to the hon. Gentleman—that it is that uncertainty that creates the difficult environment for businesses to invest. They do not know, from one year to the next, what any tax allowance might be. We want to get to the bottom of that, so the mistakes the Chancellor made in 2010 will not be repeated.

Andrew Gotch of the Chartered Institute of Taxation commented on the increase announced at the 2012 autumn statement:

“This is a very generous increase that will be warmly welcomed by many small businesses...However, we note that it is only a temporary increase. Business would really welcome some stability in this area. In recent years, the allowance has fallen from £100,000 to £25,000. Now it will rise to £250,000 before, apparently, coming back to £25,000. Businesses like certainty above everything and the chopping and changing of the AIA has been a problem”.

Hon. Members do not need to take it from me, but from a whole range of sources who have raised this as a concern. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales welcomed the increase to the allowance, but said:

“We are less enthusiastic about the frequency of the change to this amount.”

Let me be clear, the Opposition welcomed the 2013 increase in the annual investment allowance to £250,000, but we share the very serious concerns about the extremely complex manner in which that was implemented. As hon. Members may be aware, many organisations and individual businesses raised concerns that the increase to £250,000 would run from January 2013 to January 2015, rather than over companies’ usual accounting periods, making it problematic for firms, particularly small ones, to administer. Indeed, as the Association of Taxation Technicians neatly put it at the time,

“the chopping and changing of capital allowances will lead to error, confusion and higher professional costs for small businesses.”

The Opposition also welcomed the Chancellor’s announcement in Budget 2014 to extend the period of the temporary increase to 31 December 2015, with the allowance being temporarily increased again to £500,000 from April 2014. The straight fact, however, is that the Chancellor and his Government have tied themselves in knots over this vital issue. Just last year, when we considered in Committee what is now the Finance Act 2013, the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), explained why the increase in the allowance to £250,000 from January 2013 would be a temporary measure only. He said:

“We recognise that the change follows quite soon after the decrease in the annual investment allowance to £25,000 that was announced in the June 2010 Budget and implemented in the Finance Act 2011, which took effect from April 2012. The Government’s central position has not changed and remains that, in general, a lower corporation tax rate with fewer reliefs and fewer allowances will provide the best incentives for business investment, with the fewest possible distortions. That is why we have announced a further reduction in the main rate of corporation tax, as we discussed earlier, from April 2015 and is also why the current 10-fold increase in the maximum annual investment allowance is time limited rather than permanent.”––[Official Report, Finance Public Bill Committee, 16 May 2013; c. 145.]

A matter of months later, at Budget 2014, the Chancellor decided to about-turn once again, and extended and temporarily increased the annual investment allowance further—before, presumably, he intended it to return to £25,000 from 1 January 2016. As the Chartered Institute of Taxation put it so well, the one thing businesses need most, particularly in challenging economic times, is certainty. They need long-term stability and predictability to give them the confidence to invest, to make plans for the future and to take on more staff. What they have got from this Government, however, is a continual chopping and changing, with U-turn after U-turn and what seems to be a complete lack of strategic thinking.

What we need to hear from the Minister today is confirmation that the Treasury and his Government have taken seriously the impact of their decisions on business confidence, investment and jobs. We need to know that they have learned from the Chancellor’s mistake back in 2010, and that they will properly review its impact to ensure that the same mistake is not made again.

What assessment has the Minister made of the number of businesses that were not able to grow after the annual investment allowance was slashed? How many jobs could have been created during the last three years of flatlining growth while we have undergone the slowest recovery for 100 years? How many households could have been better off as a consequence, but will find themselves worse off in 2015 than they were back in 2010? Let us not forget that in 2010, back when the Chancellor was slashing the annual investment allowance, he said that the economy would have grown by 9.25% by now. Instead, it has grown by just 4.6%—far slower than in the United States or Germany. Indeed, GDP growth this year is still expected to be lower than the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast in 2010.

On Monday, my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor made an important speech about Labour’s approach to developing a business tax system that promotes long-term investment, supports enterprise and innovation and, most importantly, provides a stable and predictable policy framework for business, which is founded on fairness. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend, the Leader of the Opposition set out how a future Labour Government will mend Britain’s fractured economy and develop a genuinely long-term approach to backing growth in every part of this country to ensure rising prosperity for all.

It is this long-term approach to growth and backing Britain’s business and jobs that has been so lacking from this Government, and nothing illustrates it better than their shambolic and chaotic approach to the annual investment allowance since 2010. For that reason, I urge hon. and right hon. Members to back new clause 10 this afternoon, to ensure that the Government understand the impact of the Chancellor’s dreadful decision making back in 2010, and that they do not make the same mistakes ever again.

[Charlie Elphicke]

This new clause highlights two problems relating to its proposers and their party. The first is that they are stuck in the past. They have talked about the past and completely failed to set out their case for the future and the kind of Britain they would like to create. They just want to talk about something that happened previously. This is another one of the instrumentalised nuggets of attack, policy and press strategies referred to by Labour’s head of policy.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Let me correct the hon. Gentleman. He seems not to have been paying attention to my final comments, which were very much about Labour’s strategy for boosting economic growth and sustaining long-term economic stability for the future. The purpose of new clause 10 is to reflect back on past mistakes, of which we believe the Government need to take account.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Let us be clear what we are talking about. Labour and the hon. Lady want to spend two hours of the time available to debate this Bill talking about a period of nine months that happened nearly two years ago. In 2008, Labour introduced the annual investment allowance—an interesting point to which I shall return. It was set first at £50,000; then raised to £100,000; in April 2012, it was reduced to £25,000, which lasted nine months until January 2013, when it went up to £250,000—a far greater amount than under the legacy left by Labour.

[Catherine McKinnell]

rose—

[Charlie Elphicke]

Let me develop my point, and I shall give way again in a few moments.

It is important and instructive that this Government have incentivised investment. What the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) did not develop during the debate is what underpins the whole issue of investment allowances and capital allowances. Why we need capital allowances takes us to the whole issue of business investment. The challenge we all face, and have done for a very long time, is the rising corporate cash balances—about £750 billion—and the desire of us all to see that money spent.

Let us look at the Government’s policy in this area. They initially announced a reduction to £25,000 from April 2012. The hon. Lady’s first argument was that that created some form of uncertainty. The traditional argument goes, “We need to give businesses time to plan ahead; otherwise, we create uncertainty.” Well, the reduction was part of the June 2010 Budget, and it was about two years after the policy was announced before it came into effect, so I do not think that the certainty argument succeeds. The Government increased the amount substantially after only a short period of time, highlighting their concern to ensure investment.

The second problem I have with the hon. Lady’s case is that it is high risk to consider a policy on setting an investment allowance or a capital allowance on its own, as the Minister argued in an intervention. It is instructive that when Labour introduced the investment allowance, they funded the initial £50,000 by reducing general capital allowances from 25% to 20%. All policies need to be seen in a package taken together; they cannot properly be considered and debated unless the other pieces in the jigsaw are taken into account.

Finance Bill

Debate between Catherine McKinnell and Charlie Elphicke

Tuesday 3rd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

I absolutely agree with those sentiments. When discussing the impact that the total administrative failure at RBS had had, particularly on those on low wages but also, as my hon. Friend has just said, on small businesses, I was shocked and taken aback at the political opportunism involved in jumping up and raising a question about regulation, which is entirely irrelevant to the matter that I was discussing.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The issue had an enormous impact on the amount of taxes paid in this country. Why were interest rates being rigged by the previous Government, according to the memo?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. The subject before us is what we will be debating, Mr Elphicke; we do not need to be sidetracked at this stage. I call Catherine McKinnell.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

Yes. I think that we all shuddered when we heard the proposals put forward by the Prime Minister which will mean that under 25-year-olds must either live at home or become homeless.

The youth contract, which was introduced only in April this year—too little, too late—offers very little extra, with no guarantee of a job, no guarantee of the minimum wage, but what the Government call “personalised support”, which we know from leaks could be little more than a weekly text message.

I am surprised that Government Members are not jumping up to proclaim the Government’s success with apprenticeships. Even with apprenticeships, it is difficult to believe the figures on the tin, particularly after McDonald’s recently revealed that it had spent £10 million of Government funding but had not created a single new job. The money was used to fund career progression for existing staff. That may be a worthy aim, but this is not the dawn of the apprenticeship revolution that the Government would have us believe.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Would the bank bonus tax proposed in the new clause be in addition to or replace the Government’s bank levy?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I am happy to confirm that it would be in addition to the levy. We raised £3.5 billion from the bank bonus tax in 2010-11 and would like the same amount to be raised again.

[Charlie Elphicke]

That was the gross figure, but what was the net figure?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I am going by the OBR’s figures. I suggest that the Government do the same if they want to take advantage of this opportunity.

It is clear that we need action on jobs for young people. The bank bonus tax would bring in the money that is needed to create the real, paid jobs that will give under-25s the start that they need to get into the job market. That money could put £100,000 young people into jobs. Austerity on its own clearly cannot do that. The cuts are going too far and too fast, are choking off the recovery and are making it harder for people to get into work. We need an extra stimulus.

Rather than give the banks a tax cut this year, we want to make them pay their fair share of tax. We would use that money to give young people the start that the Government’s hotch-potch of schemes is failing to provide. That is what the new clause would achieve and I urge hon. Members to support it.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I am extremely grateful to have the opportunity to speak in this debate.

It is important to distinguish between the policies of the previous Government and those of the current Government. The bank bonus tax and the bank levy have a different ethos or philosophy. The original bonus tax—Members will correct me if I am wrong—was intended to be a one-off measure. In the March 2010 Budget, the Labour Government confirmed that the tax would not be extended, even though the gross yield proved to be higher than had been forecast.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke]

Let me develop my point and I will then take further interventions.

The Government’s bank levy is the right way forward because if we take too much money out of the banking system, we will be pulling out capital. If we pull out too much capital through taxation—or, indeed, through dividends—we will constrain the ability of the banks to lend. We have a crisis in which banks are not lending because they are hoarding capital. If we pull more capital out of the banking system, it will constrain the granting of mortgages and loans to small businesses. In my constituency, that is an important issue, because many small businesses are having great difficulty in getting the lending that they need.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I appreciate the argument that the hon. Gentleman is making, but is he not aware that long-term youth unemployment in his constituency has risen by 100% since this time last year? Does he not think that desperate action is required to bring that figure back down to zero?

[Charlie Elphicke]

I am all too aware that my constituency has had a difficult time and that youth unemployment has been rising. It rose significantly in the last Parliament under the previous Government, who completely mismanaged the economy. I welcome the fact that the jobseeker’s allowance count in my constituency has fallen in the latest figures. That is really positive. All of us are, of course, concerned about unemployment and want to see more jobs and money. That is why we need to get the banks lending again. That will help businesses to expand and to create the jobs, money and prosperity that we want to see.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke]

If we get lending going again, the economy growing again and decent private sector jobs creating more wealth as a nation, we will do better over the longer term. Having short-term measures to create jobs out of thin air—the 100,000 jobs that the Opposition talk about, for example, which would broadly be public sector-type and make-work-type jobs—is not the way to create a sustainable economy. We need to expand the private sector, expand business and expand jobs, so that they are sustainable over the longer term, not just for a year or two.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I appreciate the theory that the hon. Gentleman is putting before the House, but is he aware that the Welfare Reform Act 2012 is projected to cost £25 billion more than was predicted in 2010? So his theory is just not working.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The hon. Lady knows that the economic recovery is being held up by the chilling effect of the eurozone and because the previous Government made an even bigger mess of the economy than was previously thought. So of course it has taken us longer to recover. None of us wants our economic difficulties to continue; we want the economy to improve, but this can be done, in part, by getting banks lending again and ensuring they have the capital needed to do that safely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke]

It is indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker, because a key part of the Opposition’s rationale for the new clause is that what happened at Barclays was so disgraceful that we need to punish the bankers. A large part of the shadow Minister’s argument is that these bankers are outrageous and we need to impose a tax. My point, however, is that we need to consider the wider picture. I am particularly concerned about the comments concerning what the previous Government did on regulation as well as tax. It says here:

“Mr Tucker stated the levels of calls he was receiving from Whitehall were senior and that, while he was certain that we did not need advice, that it did not always need to be the case that we appeared as high as we have recently.”

It seems it was not only greedy bankers manipulating the interest rates and putting pressure on the LIBOR interest recording; it seems more clearly to have gone to the heart of government and to have been sanctioned by Downing street, according to some comments on the internet. When we talk about how to tax the banks, we need to consider how to get more lending and ensure responsible banking with incentives for the long term. We also need to ensure that members of the previous Government accept their responsibility for the Barclays scandal, the LIBOR situation and their own behaviour.

[Catherine McKinnell]

The information that the hon. Gentleman is laying out is very interesting, but I would like to make it clear that the Labour party has been calling for an additional levy on banks’ payrolls this year for months, if not a year—I do not have the exact date. The scandal that has unfolded this week has highlighted the contribution that the banks made to the financial collapse and the collapse of the banks, which led to the economic recession that we have suffered. For that reason—

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

We have heard some passionate speeches from Labour Members, but I am concerned about the lack of contributions from Government Members. Only one, the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), contributed in the entire debate. He put forward some interesting views and theories, and I commend him for engaging in the debate, because there is little of more importance right now than youth unemployment.

The hon. Gentleman concluded his speech, however, by hailing a return to the 1980s. I do not know about other Opposition Members, but it sent a shudder of fear through me, because although some people had the time of their lives in the 1980s—we have fond images of the City, the champagne flowing, the pinstripe suits and the brick-sized mobile phones—for many the 1980s were not pleasant or a time of growth but devastating, particularly for youth unemployment. Parts of the UK, including my region of the north-east, other English regions, Scotland and Wales, suffered dreadful decimation of their traditional manufacturing industries, and in many ways are still paying the price. We risk repeating that fate today, which is why we are proposing to impose a bank payroll tax on the very institutions that played a large part in causing the international financial crisis that led first to the recession and then to today’s double-dip recession.

[Charlie Elphicke]

rose—

[Catherine McKinnell]

I give way to the only Conservative Member to contribute to today’s debate.

[Charlie Elphicke]

How do the Opposition justify spending this money 15 times over?

[Catherine McKinnell]

We have—

Phone Hacking

Debate between Catherine McKinnell and Charlie Elphicke

Wednesday 6th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I extend my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on securing this emergency debate, and on his longstanding and tireless campaign to bring these issues to light, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson).

There have been many thoughtful, powerful, comprehensive and brave contributions from Members in all parts of the House today, including from a number of the victims and alleged victims of the phone hacking scandal, and from several Chairs of Select Committees who have been involved in investigating the matter. It is clear that all Members of the House hold a common view that the ongoing criminal investigation into phone hacking activity must take priority.

It is important to be clear that we on the Opposition Benches would not support any course of action that could or would put the hard work of the police and investigators, or any future criminal prosecutions, at risk. Our priority and focus must be on ensuring that justice is secured for people who have been victims of that crime. In considering this issue, it is of course important to reiterate that the increasingly shocking and distressing revelations in this scandal should by no means result in all journalists and newspapers, whether national or local, being tarred with the same brush. The incredibly important role played by the tireless campaigning of The Guardian on the issue has been mentioned. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) paid tribute to the great work of local journalists too.

However, a criminal justice system that inspires public confidence and an independent, rigorously regulated media are two key planks of a functioning democracy, and it is clear that both of these have been damaged by this developing scandal. The allegations unfolding daily, and sometimes hourly, have thrown up many more issues than can be dealt with or resolved through criminal investigations and prosecutions alone. We are not alone in saying this. The Government should listen to the public and, as the shadow Home Secretary outlined earlier, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner himself. That is why we welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment today to hold a public inquiry, or inquiries, into the issues that have arisen as a result of this scandal.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I am afraid that I cannot, as time is very short.

As outlined earlier, given the potential conflicts of interest, we need reassurance about exactly what the Prime Minister’s role will be in this. I must also reference the widespread concerns expressed by Members across the House about News Corp’s takeover of BSkyB. I trust that the Attorney-General and the Culture Secretary will treat all these concerns with the seriousness they deserve and take action accordingly. Although the Attorney-General said that he was mindful of the comments that have been made during the course of the debate, we have not been reassured that positive steps to set up a full, independent, wide-ranging and transparent inquiry will be taken without delay.

Without jeopardising any criminal investigations or future prosecutions, the Government can begin the work of agreeing the nature and scope of the inquiry and who will take it forward before those criminal proceedings are complete. Criminal investigations into, and prosecutions for, phone hacking will certainly take months to reach a conclusion, and possibly years. If we are to start to rebuild the public’s confidence in our criminal justice system and the operation of our newspaper industry, the public and the victims of this dreadful crime need the reassurance of a public inquiry now.