European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Chris Leslie and Jim Cunningham

Tuesday 12th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Leslie]

No, I will not give way.

Ministers can come and go, but we across this Chamber need that level of certainty. We of course accept the fact that there will be further discussions. The question about taking back control was put to us consistently throughout the referendum. As someone was saying earlier, we obviously cannot call hon. Members hypocrites, but we can point out the hypocrisy in general of the argument of those who might have said in one breath that we should take back control and then had the audacity to come here and say, “Oh well, the UK Parliament clearly has to be cut out of this issue altogether.” I know that we were all elected in 2017 on a mandate drawn up subsequent to the referendum. Our mandate, collectively, has a value, and we should not diminish that and pretend that we should be cut out of this process altogether when there are so many things at stake.

This is not a binary question, and I do not believe that the British people voted to take back control from Brussels only to give that control unilaterally and in its entirety to the Prime Minister and her friends. This is a matter for us, and our constituents would expect nothing less than for us to say, “Hang on a minute, what about our jobs in the manufacturing sector? What about the car industry? What about those who work in the financial services sector?” All the people working in those sectors have the right to expect us to do our job with due diligence.

The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) has rightly pointed out that we could find ourselves in a situation in which no deal is reached because the discussions and negotiations have collapsed. There is no certainty that the motion would then come forward. When the Secretary of State was intervened on and asked what would happen if no deal were to materialise, he said that the Government would come forward with a statement. When he was asked how the Government were going to prevent us from falling over the cliff, no answer was forthcoming. This is an incredibly important point. We have a duty to safeguard our constituents from harm. That harm could affect not only their livelihoods and their jobs but all the revenues that taxpayers pay towards our public services. So if we care about our NHS, we have to ensure that there is a safeguard in place. If we care about schools and council services, we need this insurance policy in place. We should not go through such a crucially important issue without those particular safeguards.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend recall that, during the general election, the Prime Minister said that she was being obstructed in Parliament and needed a big majority? Well, she got her answer at that election. Coming back to another point that my hon. Friend has made, the midlands rely on trade, and we should not be jeopardising hundreds of thousands of jobs in the west midlands.

[Mr Leslie]

My hon. Friend says it perfectly. We would be failing in our duty if we were simply to delegate all our decisions to the Prime Minister and say, “That’s it. Everything has been done.” Leaving the customs union or the single market was not on the ballot paper, and those are things on which we have a right to express our view.

European Affairs

Debate between Chris Leslie and Jim Cunningham

Thursday 15th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Leslie]

The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Those on the Front Benches will be noting that figures from Her Majesty’s Treasury have been disputed by their own Back Benchers.

It is important that we talk about European affairs. The right hon. Member for Wokingham advocated taking back control as though he on his own, isolated from all around him, can thrive and prosper without relationships and links with the outside world. It is tempting to envisage him locked in this room on his own, with the doors closed, just to see how he would thrive without the sort of relationships and sustenance that others provide.

So too, for the British economy, there is this fallacy about our independent sovereignty—that as a small island, we can cope on our own, without the rest of the world. These days, in the 21st century and in a modern economy, we rely on the rest of the world, and they also benefit from our engagement with them. We risk serious self-harm if we try to pretend that detaching ourselves from those alliances and relationships and going for the very first time towards less market access, as the Prime Minister advocates, is somehow going to make us better off. It will not; it will make us poorer.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

The right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) is talking about a world that is long gone, in actual fact. We are a big wide world. I remember when the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister; his judgment was faulty then, and it is as faulty now. He goes on about taking powers back from Europe. The last two days have proved that we are not getting our powers back from Europe under his terms. What is happening now is that the Government are trying to tell us what to do without votes.

[Mr Leslie]

We have to recognise that in so many areas of policy—not just economic or trade policy—we benefit from these alliances and relationships. They do need to be worked on, and we need to somehow give and take a little bit. That is the nature of the global neighbourhood in which we live.

It would be remiss if I did not at this point voice my appreciation for the statements from France and Germany, which have shown their solidarity and fraternity with the United Kingdom in respect of the Russian chemical attack in Salisbury. We are talking about European affairs, and it is important that Europe stands together at an important moment such as this.

But Brexit is bound to dominate this sort of debate, and there are a number of aspects that I want to pick up on. The first is the question of frictionless borders and the trade arrangements that we absolutely have to maintain, not just for our own economic continuance but because of the Good Friday agreement and the need to avoid anything that could diminish the peace settlement in Northern Ireland.

The phase 1 agreement that the Government signed up to said that if they cannot come up with alternative arrangements, full alignment will be the way forward. My understanding is that the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has this morning admitted that the notion of a technological option—the “smart borders” option—is just not viable. It is not going to work because it requires hard infrastructure at the borders. You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that there are 275 crossing points on the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The notion of having hard infrastructure—cameras, inspection posts and who knows what else—is clearly not compatible with the Good Friday agreement, so the Government have ruled that option out.

The only option that therefore exists is some sort of magical deal whereby the UK agrees to administer the external tariff arrangements for the rest of the European Union while simultaneously administering our own separate tariff arrangements for goods that are destined just within the UK. That does not happen anywhere else in the world. As well as being a complete bureaucratic nightmare, it would require reciprocity from our European partners with regard to our arrangements. They would have to administer a dual-tariff system for goods destined for the UK and those destined for Europe. It is just not going to happen. When the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) winds up the debate, he would do well to admit that the phase 1 agreement that he signed up to now means full regulatory alignment and, of course, that a customs union is the best and simplest way to achieve that.

The Government are trying their best and scrabbling around, asking the road haulage industry, trade bodies and other cargo and freight companies, “What are your volumes of traffic and what’s happening in trade?”, and making them sign non-disclosure agreements, to try to gag them if they dare to speak, even to their own trade body members, about their conversations with Ministers. That just shows how desperate the situation is.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Chris Leslie and Jim Cunningham

Committee: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 12th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Leslie]

I thought for a minute, Mrs Laing, that you were going to read out all the amendments grouped today, which might have taken up some considerable time.

Today’s debate is about taking back control—about Parliament and the powers of the House of Commons to hold the Executive to account and to overrule it if we wish to do so. New clause 18 essentially says that it is time for the Government to be honest about the extensive and wide-ranging powers they want to take away from Parliament, which essentially is what the Bill proposes to do. Some might say that my new clause does not go far enough, that it is a little tepid: it simply says that the Government ought to commission a proper independent report into the constitutional ramifications and implications of their proposal. In my view, they have not thought the process through properly. They denied the House a pre-legislative scrutiny process for the Bill and, importantly, ignored an extremely detailed and thoughtful report and set of recommendations from the House of Lords Constitution Committee, which went into painstaking detail to review Ministers’ proposals, particularly those in clause 7. It also did so with respect to clause 9—we will not be voting on aspects of clause 9 today, but certain amendments to it have been grouped for discussion.

I accept that if we leave the EU, the acquis—the body of existing EU law—will need to be converted into UK law. We were told, of course, that the Bill was supposed to be a simple “copy and paste” exercise that merely transposed those EU rules under which we have lived for the past 30 or 40 years into UK law. Despite the early recommendations from the House of Lords Constitution Committee, made long before publication of the Bill, back in March, Ministers have made a real error in failing to distinguish between the technical and necessary task of transposing existing laws from EU to UK statute and the wider powers that Ministers are taking potentially to make substantive policy changes, by order, in areas that currently fall within EU competence. In other words, they have not sought to curtail the order-making powers simply to focus on that transposition exercise. The order-making powers go far wider into a whole array of policy making areas.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

We were told that we were bringing powers back to this Parliament so that this Parliament could take decisions. Why, then, are the Government trying to introduce something similar to the Henry VIII clause? Does it not make a mockery of their promises?

[Mr Leslie]

Exactly. People voting in the referendum might have been moved by that slogan “take back control”, but I do not honestly think many voters thought that that meant taking back control from a European Executive and handing it to Ministers of the Crown, outwith the powers and scope of Parliament to do much about it, yet that is effectively the proposal in clause 7.

I want to emphasise that this is not simply an exercise in transposing technical and necessary measures. The Government have extended the scope of the Bill into policy-making capability, which brings in the question of divergence. We have heard a lot recently about concepts of full alignment and this notion of diverging from rules and policies. The way clauses 7 and 9 have been drafted would allow Ministers, by order, through negative statutory instruments that we rarely get the chance even to vote on in this place, to make policy changes that could affect policy functions and the rights of our constituents—perhaps as part of a deregulating agenda—if that is indeed what the Government of the day sought to achieve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Leslie]

The Bill’s provisions are so wide-ranging that the protections that our constituents have enjoyed to this day as a result of European regulations and rights could be at risk—not from Parliament, but from a ministerial sweep of the pen, through the making of an order: a negative statutory instrument.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

We had a good test of that some time ago in relation to trade union rights, through what the Government did to the Trade Union Bill during its passage through Parliament. Does my hon. Friend agree that the big test will be something the Government are being evasive about: will this Parliament get the final vote? We were told during the referendum campaign that Parliament would have its say and everything would be brought back here, yet the Government are doing everything in their power to avoid giving Parliament the final vote on this.

[Mr Leslie]

The offer from the Government has been a binary yes or no motion at some point when we see the withdrawal agreement, and then—potentially after the fact, post-signature by Ministers—a Bill later on down the line. That is obviously not good enough, but we will come to many of those issues in tomorrow’s debates. For now, there are further deficiencies in the way clause 7 has been drafted to be addressed.

Clause 7(5) talks about the functions and public services that the regulations can amend. The right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield has spotted in amendment 5, as I have in amendment 61, that these powers could allow Ministers to sweep away a public service function currently undertaken by an EU agency without making alternative provisions; Ministers have talked about a function being not only “replaced” or “modified”, but “abolished”. Ridiculously, Ministers have snuck in this phrase, under which by order they can abolish a whole area of public service activity through the powers they are granting themselves in subsection (5). That could affect lots of obscure and small areas of public policy that do not matter to all our constituents but will certainly matter to some, including chemical safety certification, medicine risk assessment activities, aircraft airworthiness, preparedness for disease prevention and control, aeronautic research, energy market trading, and maritime pollution.

There are lots of functions that EU agencies currently fulfil. Some Members might say that they should be fulfilled within the UK, which is a perfectly good argument, but clause 7 would allow Ministers to abolish those functions entirely by order. I do not believe that is appropriate, and that is why I think amendment 61 and certainly amendment 5 are necessary.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Chris Leslie and Jim Cunningham

Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 15th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

My hon. Friend has listed what we would like to see. Would he also include regional aid, which is very important to west midlands manufacturing industries?

[Mr Leslie]

Regional aid—and the financial side—probably has more to do with the EU, and the Government have to say how they would substitute that. All these policies are much affected by our membership of the EEA. The only things not in the EEA are many of the customs union and trade policy arrangements. If we want a smooth Brexit—a soft Brexit, we might call it—membership of the EEA is by far the better arrangement. Rather than climbing every mountain rebuilding a trade relationship with the EU, as well as reaching all the free trade agreements with the rest of the world, we could retain our membership of the EEA and with it those trading benefits with the rest of Europe, while still being free to make trade agreements with those other countries we could negotiate with. That would be a bite-size way to deal with this change and more effective than having to climb all those mountains simultaneously.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Chris Leslie and Jim Cunningham

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 6th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

That is another issue that deserves a massive amount of consideration, but we just do not have the time to go through it today.

I will move on, then, to new clause 22, on competition policy—another small area of policy! The White Paper says absolutely nothing about what the UK will do, upon our exit from the EU, in respect of competition policy. It is totally silent. Will we change our attitude towards state aid for industry? What will our state aid rules be? If we make a change, will our trading partners baulk at the idea that we might be subsidising products in a particular way? Will we be undercutting their production? Would we not wish to do that? Will we take on the WTO disciplines on subsidies? Will we join the EEA scheme on subsidies? What about state aid rules, competition policy and the European Free Trade Association? This a big deal. I think of subjects that have come up recently such as Hinkley Point, the British investment bank and British steel. These are all questions we have to consider and decide upon. All I am saying in new clause 22 is that the Government should publish a report in one month on their attitude to competition policy. It is a pretty simple measure.



I have tabled other amendments that would require Ministers to set out their aspirations, within one month of Royal Assent, on other questions that will arise as we extract ourselves from some of these European partnerships, alliances and agencies. On law enforcement, for example, what will we do about Europol? New clause 111 touches on the benefits we currently enjoy from cross-border co-operation on cybercrime, terrorism, combating trafficking and other important activities. We deserve to know the Government’s approach to cross-border crime, as we do with respect to the European Police College, Eurojust, our co-operation with prosecuting authorities, the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction and the Agency for Fundamental Rights. The White Paper is totally silent on all those issues. We have no idea what the Government’s plan and negotiating stance will be, and yet we do not have the time to debate these matters properly.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I do not know what the Government are worried about. Anybody who knows anything about negotiations knows that each side can report back from time to time without necessarily giving away their negotiating hand. I do not know what they are scared of.

[Chris Leslie]

I think the Government might be scared of the debate. It also reflects their lack of awareness of the issues. The Government have not thought this through but instead are confronting issues as they bubble up, at a fairly random level, while giving a veneer of control—“We must not show our cards”, “I cannot give a running commentary”. Ministers use these phrases, but behind the curtain they are panicking and their feet are moving rapidly, because they do not have a clue.

Productivity

Debate between Chris Leslie and Jim Cunningham

Wednesday 17th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Chris Leslie]

I give way to my hon. Friend.

[Mr Cunningham]

Surely we can take the argument further when we talk about productivity. This is not a new debate—it has been going on for very many years. We do not necessarily have to look at hourly productivity; we have to give the individual who produces things the equipment and research to do the job. That is how we increase productivity, when we break it all down.

[Chris Leslie]

As my hon. Friend says, it is incredibly important to invest in new production process technologies and make sure that we have the necessary machinery and capital equipment. I will turn to business investment and how we can incentivise it. We have to make sure that the Chancellor addresses those challenges. He has his emergency Budget and his own political priorities that he wants to put first, but this, ultimately, is the key.

NHS (Government Spending)

Debate between Chris Leslie and Jim Cunningham

Wednesday 28th January 2015 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House notes comments from leading doctors and nurses that the NHS is in crisis under this Government, which has wasted £3 billion on a reckless reorganisation; believes an extra £2.5 billion a year should be invested in the health service, including to fund an additional 20,000 nurses and 8,000 GPs, by raising additional revenue from closing tax loopholes, a levy on tobacco companies and a tax on properties worth over £2 million; further notes that the Office for Budget Responsibility has said that the Government’s spending plans in the Autumn Statement would return public spending to a share of national income last seen in the late 1930s, before there was an NHS, and a level which is incompatible with the Government’s claims to be able to protect the NHS; recognises that only four OECD countries have total government expenditure at 35 per cent or less of GDP and that all of these countries have significantly higher charging as a share of overall national health spending than in the UK; and calls on the Government to reconsider the plans set out in the Autumn Statement for even deeper spending cuts, which the head of the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said could involve a fundamental reimagining of the role of the state.

We have discussed already today some of the issues facing the NHS, but when will the Government realise that our health service faces such unprecedented pressures that it is in intensive care and in need of urgent attention if we are to avoid reaching the point of no return?

I want at the outset to set the context for this debate, because it is important that we look at this Administration’s record so far. We know that the numbers of people waiting for more than four hours in the accident and emergency departments of our hospitals throughout the country have grown and grown, but in 2014 almost 1.25 million people waited for longer than four hours. It is true that the number of people going to A and E has been increasing: in the last four years of the last Government, it was rising by about 60,000 a year, but in the last four years it has gone up by 600,000 a year. This is a rapid escalation in the level of strain on our NHS infrastructure, which has a series of causes that fall at the Government’s door.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

It gets worse. At University hospital in Coventry, we are now back to the bed-blocking of previous Tory Governments as a result of cuts to local government funding for social workers, which means that people cannot be discharged. That is back to the future, as it were.

[Chris Leslie]

The accident and emergency situation is a barometer of a series of failures across the health and social care infrastructure. I shall certainly deal with some of those questions, as will my hon. Friends.

The Economy

Debate between Chris Leslie and Jim Cunningham

Wednesday 26th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

It is the complacency from those on the Government Benches that will, I think, shock our constituents most of all.

Only last week, the Deputy Prime Minister said in questions that “the economy is fixed”. How out of touch are Ministers in this Government, whether they are Liberal Democrats or Tories?

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

If we listened to the Government, we would never think that the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the collapse of Fannie Mae in America caused the last economic crisis. They continually blame the previous Labour Government, but they have to face up to the truth, which is that it started in America and no Government could have legislated for it. They have now found out that there is an economic crisis and recession in Europe, so is that the next excuse for a punitive Budget?

[Chris Leslie]

The previous Government did the right thing after that banking crisis by getting growth moving forward—growth that had the rug pulled from under it by the lack of confidence shown by the Chancellor and the measures he took in that autumn statement back in 2010 and in his emergency Budget.

The Government’s long-term plan is little more than trickle-down economics, which has failed in the past and will fail again in the future. The share of national income held by 90% of earners has shrunk since this Government came to power, whereas the share of the cake held by the wealthiest 1% has—surprise, surprise—gone up.

We need a plan that genuinely delivers a recovery for the many, not just for the few. We do not need the slogan-heavy, content-light, trickle-down plan of Treasury Ministers, but we need action on house building, which is at the lowest level since the 1920s, with a goal of building 200,000 new homes each year by 2020. We need a minimum wage rising as a proportion of average earnings and real incentives for the living wage. We need the expansion of free child care for working parents, paid for by the bank levy that the Government failed so spectacularly to collect. We need a cut in business rates for small firms, rather than a reliance and a focus only on corporation tax cuts for big businesses. We need an independent infrastructure commission to deliver the transport networks that our economy needs, rather than what suits the Government’s short-term political needs. We need to tackle the abuse of zero-hours contracts, we need to hear the Government argue for Britain to play a leading role in a reformed European Union, and we need a real economic plan that can enable us to earn our way towards rising living standards for all, not just for the few. Those are the priorities for next week’s autumn statement.

Income Tax

Debate between Chris Leslie and Jim Cunningham

Wednesday 5th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

It sounds as though the right hon. Gentleman is trying to wriggle out of voting for that cut in the 50p rate. He tries to change the subject—“Look over here, we’ve done this” or “We’ve done that,” but he voted for a cut in the 50p rate for the very wealthiest in society. He asks—I am sure we will hear this from the Minister as well—why we did not do that for 13 years. We had a global financial crisis that hit tax receipts significantly, and in 2009, looking at the state of the public finances, we felt that the fairest thing to do was to raise the rate to 50p, which is obviously shocking to Government Members.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

The financial crisis actually started in America with JP Morgan. The Government are trying to rewrite history. Is it not true that under this Government people are worse off to the tune of £1,600 a year, and that the purchasing power of their wages has dropped 6%?

[Chris Leslie]

People faced a double whammy—the tax and the changes to their tax credits by the Conservatives, together with that squeeze on living standards as a result of wages failing to keep pace with prices.

We are doing the Government a favour today. We are trying our best to persuade them of the error of their ways. We have tabled a motion that allows them to put right the wrong they have done, get their priorities right and admit it was a mistake to reduce the top rate of income tax at a time when working people are not feeling any recovery.

Finance Bill

Debate between Chris Leslie and Jim Cunningham

Wednesday 2nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

The hon. Gentleman represents very many of those investment fund managers. He is doing the job he was sent to do, but this is a matter of priorities, and I have to say that the Opposition just disagree. The Treasury has finite resources at its disposal, and at a time of pressures, cuts, and rises in tax—through VAT and in other ways—that hit the least well-off in society, I just disagree with Ministers and Members on the Government Benches that this should have been the priority.

There were other specific areas where we tried to persuade the Government to improve the Bill, such as the proposal to give shares to employees in exchange for employment rights. We believe that undermines what should be a healthy approach to employee share ownership, because it gives the sense that something is being taken away, and that there is a disadvantage. That point was voiced not just by Opposition Members, but by some Government Members. Again, however, we could not persuade the Government on that.

So many tax loopholes need to be addressed, and the Finance Bill should have been the opportunity to tackle some of them, not least the notorious quoted eurobond exemption, which is costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of pounds. Ministers ought to have had the courage to take on that issue. Some of the Bill’s proposals for pensions flexibility are sensible, but big questions remain about the advice we will be able to give retirees to make sure that they get the guidance they need, at that most crucial point in their financial lives, to make the right choice, if they are not purchasing an annuity. Ministers have not lived up to the challenge of ensuring that that guidance and advice is possible. In the debate, I heard that that guidance may currently equate to 15 minutes of face-to-face advice—perhaps I should say face-to-faces advice, because the Minister with responsibility for pensions is now saying, “We will give you some guidance, but it might be as part of a group of people.” The Government have to improve the legislation in this area.

The Bill contains a proposal for a married couples allowance. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury and, I suspect, the Chancellor personally disagree with it, but in a coalition they have to throw a bit of meat to the Back Benchers. The allowance discriminates between forms of partnership and does not help many married couples at all, as we see when we look at the total number who will benefit. If we have tax cuts to give, they should be given to as many people as possible.

Of course, we also tried to improve the specifics and dissuade the Government from continuing their tax cut for millionaires—the reduction from 50p to 45p in tax on earnings of more than £150,000. Again, that is a sign of their priorities: they stand up for those who already have significant wealth in society, but do not respond to the needs and requirements of the least well-off.

We tried our best to improve the Bill, but it missed a number of opportunities. Significant reforms should have been in it, but are conspicuous by their absence. Why did the Treasury not put the cost of living concerns front and centre in this legislation? I am not just talking about making sure that energy companies stop ripping off households up and down the country, or about passing on wholesale price reductions to ordinary households; the Bill should have contained, for example, steps towards a 10p starting rate of tax. There are a number of ways in which cost of living issues should have been far higher up in this legislation.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

The Conservative Government of the early 1970s recognised that there was a cost of living problem in this country, and they gave a cost of living payment, through the wage packet, to the low-paid in industries.

[Chris Leslie]

One would have thought that by now Ministers would have twigged that for all the talk of growth and the recovery, their constituents, never mind ours, are not seeing the benefits in their daily lives. That should have been a focus in the Finance Bill. It should have focused more on housing, as we have a crisis in this country, whereby demand exceeds supply and we have the lowest level of house building since the 1920s. Yet Ministers seem intent on structuring a lopsided recovery in our housing market, failing to deliver the 200,000 properties a year we should be aiming towards by 2020. In addition, many tenants are being ripped off by lettings agencies in our private rented sector. We need reforms to deal with those sorts of things and the Budget ducked those issues, as did the Finance Bill.

The Bill could have dealt with some of the exploitative zero-hours contracts. It should have contained measures to help small and medium-sized enterprises with business rates, because many firms in our constituencies are finding it difficult to get by. We should make sure that we help them, not just with business rates but by making sure that the banks do their job and provide credit. Those are the sorts of reforms that would make a big difference, but again, they were not in this Finance Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

Let the record show that the Conservative Minister did not rule out increasing VAT to above 20%. It is telling that he gave a heavy hint that that remains open as an option. We can have these discussions and examine these particular issues, but I am looking at the missed opportunities—the things that should have been in the Finance Bill. We are now on its Third Reading, and it is time that Ministers realised that people from across the country are crying out for significant changes and improvements that will affect their lives.

I am thinking, for example, of the 5 million people in low pay and the incentives to deliver a living wage. That could have been part of the Finance Bill, but it is not. I am thinking of those families who are struggling with the high cost of child care, which is increasing at a rate higher than inflation. If only the Minister had designed his bank levy properly in the first place and collected the £2.5 billion that he promised the country, we could afford to move from 15 hours of free child care for working parents of three and four-year-olds to 25 hours. That is the sort of reform that could make a big and appreciable difference to the lives of working people up and down the country.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

Once again, it comes back to helping families with the cost of living. The Government cut Sure Start, nursery places and so on. Although they boast that they expanded that provision, they did not—they cut it, although we do not have the exact figures. The situation is exacerbated for a lot of families by the bedroom tax, which is forcing people into more expensive accommodation and thereby driving rents up. There is also a lack of social house building in this country.

[Chris Leslie]

That is my point. The Press Gallery is not bursting at the seams because the Government do not want people to think about what could have been in the Finance Bill. That is not something they want to talk about. They want it to be a “steady as she goes” Finance Bill. They do not want to address the problems of the bedroom tax or to supply real help to the long-term unemployed through starter jobs to give them the opportunity to repair their CVs and get a foot on the ladder. Repeating the bankers bonus tax would have supplied the revenue for that. There are funded ways of doing those things; despite how Ministers seem to want to portray it, this is not about unfunded commitments or borrowing. There are clear, practical and well-costed ways of delivering real improvements to people’s lives, but Ministers refused to do them.

Why are Ministers missing the opportunity offered by this Bill? As far as they are concerned, everything is fine with the economy. It is all going perfectly well. That is their view, but I am afraid that we disagree on that point. As far as Ministers are concerned everything is fine with living standards, but the OBR has said that people will be worse off in real wage terms in 2015 than they were in 2010. Ministers think that everything is fine in the welfare system, but they do not realise that the welfare bill is rising because they are not tackling the root causes of welfare inflation, such as rising rents, long-term unemployment and the subsidies required for low wages. Those are the sorts of challenges that should have been covered in the Finance Bill but are not.

On the deficit and the national debt, Ministers think that everything is fine even though the past couple of months have seen the deficit rise. It is going in the wrong direction. They have added a third to the national debt, which is now at £1.2 trillion. If interest rates go up even by 25 basis points—0.25%—an extra £2 billion of public expenditure will be required to service the debt that they will be accumulating.

Ministers think that everything is fine with productivity, yet infrastructure output is down by 10% compared with in 2010. They think that everything is fine in the housing market, yet we can see by the lopsided nature of what is happening in the economy that there are real risks that mortgage rates might well rise prematurely because of how they have failed to recognise the need to match demand and supply more effectively. They might be satisfied with the state of the economy, but we are not.

[Mr Cunningham]

It is interesting that my hon. Friend has mentioned interest rates, because, one way or another, they are bound to go up over the next 12 to 18 months. That will have a major effect on negative equity for people who have bought their houses, but, more importantly, it can affect small businesses that want to borrow money and are not getting much help from the banks at the moment. The Government spend half their time blaming a Labour Government for the mess that the banks created. They have never attacked the bankers, who made the economic situation worse, not better. They are apologising for the bankers and blaming us.

[Chris Leslie]

Government Members and Ministers do not understand how important it is that we ensure that the recovery is sustained and sustainable. A premature rise in interest rates has considerable risks. Three quarters of credit and debt is floating, so if interest rates do rise prematurely, significant harm will come to many householders. Even a quarter point rise in interest rates will cost the typical householder £240 per year. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) may be relaxed, as the Chancellor is relaxed, about interest rates. The Chancellor says that he is not bothered—that he is relaxed about rising interest rates. Is the hon. Lady relaxed about rising interest rates? I will give way to her if she is.

Banking

Debate between Chris Leslie and Jim Cunningham

Wednesday 15th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

There is a touch of revisionism from Government Members, but perhaps that is a bit generous; their attempt to rewrite history is breathtaking. I have no doubt that when the Minister speaks my hon. Friends will hear a complacent desire just to move on from banking reform and a desperation to make party political points about the history of the banking crisis. They will try, with all their might, to pretend that it was Labour’s spending on schools and hospitals that caused a global recession in dozens of countries worldwide, but my hon. Friends will not hear from him about how the banks must still be made to pay for their egregious and scandalous abuses and over-leveraged trades in sub-prime mortgage securities.

All sense that the banks must be held accountable for the state we are in has been airbrushed from the Government’s narrative, because they want to blame their political opponents rather than upset their corporate friends. Perhaps the Minister likes to turn a blind eye, in the knowledge that it really was the banks that were responsible for the global financial crisis, or perhaps he has now genuinely convinced himself that it was primarily the fault of Governments and that the banks were only a little bit to blame. Either way, they have the wrong analysis, which explains why they have the wrong policies. By failing to tackle the root causes of recent economic devastation and the deficit that built up as a result, they are maintaining the risk that banks could once again turn to the taxpayer to bail them out, should they fail again. Never again must the taxpayer pick up the losses for the reckless behaviour of banks, and never again must our economy and public services be thrown into such turmoil because of the negligence and monumental greed of banking executives and traders.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I apologise for arriving late, Mr Speaker. I am sure my hon. Friend would agree that in the last Parliament the Conservative party, in opposition, only ever complained about red tape. Did he notice that for the first time today the Prime Minister talked about the recession not being the fault of the Labour party?

[Chris Leslie]

This is why this Government’s narrative is beginning to crumble around the edges. Most people realise that the banking sector was totally dysfunctional and causing great difficulties. Of course we need better policing throughout the international community and by the regulators, but if we are to rehabilitate the banking sector, we cannot shy away from the tough decisions needed to change its structures and behaviour. There are still too many areas in which the Government have left banking reform unfinished.

Cost of Living

Debate between Chris Leslie and Jim Cunningham

Wednesday 27th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

The hon. Lady makes her point. Unfortunately, a lot of Conservatives like to pretend that they are giving with one hand, yet they are taking away so much more with the other—not just the tax rises that they pretend never happened but the unremitting rise in the costs that people face daily.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is right to say that the Government give with one hand and take with another. Does he agree that of the £14 billion of tax adjustments last year, £11 billion was inflicted on women and their cost of living?

Financial Transaction Tax and Economic and Monetary Union

Debate between Chris Leslie and Jim Cunningham

Tuesday 18th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

Why on earth then does the Minister not engage in the process, change people’s minds, get a better design, deal with this residence principle properly and let us have a financial transaction tax that is in all of our best interests, particularly across those global centres?

The Minister talked about not having objections to an FTT on equities, but he did not say anything about bonds or derivatives in that context. So I challenge him again on the principle: is he absolutely against any sort of FTT on bonds or derivatives? It sounded as though he was, but I say to him that he has to start waking up and engaging with other jurisdictions on these particular points rather than trying to stop it.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

May I apologise to the Minister for coming in a little late? The same argument was used about the minimum wage. I recall that when this Government were in opposition, they were telling us that the minimum wage would cost a couple of million jobs.

[Chris Leslie]

The public are sick and tired of hearing more of the same from the Government—no solutions, just reasons for not doing anything differently. It should not need to be restated—although it clearly does for Government Members—that the global financial crisis and the collapse of many organisations in the financial services sector required an enormous bail-out from the public purse. That collapse in revenues led to an extra £300 billion on the national debt. As the Government have failed to turn things around, we can see that many of the consequences are still being felt today by our constituents and that we need to do something different.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

The hon. Lady knows very well that millions and possibly billions of financial transactions take place every day of the week—almost every hour—and it is a question of whether there is a social benefit that we should look at as a recompense to society at large, which should not see those financial transactions as totally disconnected from our economy and our society. We know that excessive risk taking and many of the problems that arose from the attachment to the derivatives trade and others got us into the problems of the global financial crisis. Rather than turning its back on it and not engaging, as the Government are doing, the financial services industry should engage in that and think about the design. Let us get it right and do it on our terms, rather than waiting to play catch-up.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

Is not the answer to the Minister that Government Members want to protect the bankers? They do not want to make the bankers pay for what they did to the British economy and the world economy.

Tax Fairness

Debate between Chris Leslie and Jim Cunningham

Tuesday 12th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

It is important to listen to the Liberal Democrats’ proposal for a mansion tax. They believe that £2 billion could be raised in that way from properties worth £2 million or more to help those on low and middle incomes. In our view, any such revenue should fund the reintroduction of a 10p starting rate of income tax.

I would say to hon. Members, and particularly to Conservative Members who are struggling with the state of the current economic policy, that there are independent authorities and budget watchdogs to correct them when they wrongly assert that growth will not be affected by the cuts and the tax rises and that they are paying down the national debt, but they cannot pull the wool over the eyes of the public, who know what fairness is and who know that the choices made so far have been deeply unfair.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend recall that it was the Labour Government who introduced the 10p tax? Does he also think that it would help those in poverty, as well as motorists and the building industry, if there were a cut in VAT?

[Chris Leslie]

That is our view. We want to do more to help those on lower and middle incomes, and to ask those privileged and wealthy individuals in society—particularly if they have a property worth £2 million or more—to make a fair contribution. The debate today presents an opportunity and a challenge to Government Members to do the right thing and to back what some of them profess to believe in.

Let me remind Members what our motion says. It asks the House to resolve

“that a mansion tax on properties worth over £2 million, to fund a tax cut for millions of people on middle and low incomes, should be part of a fair tax system; and calls on the Government to bring forward proposals for such a tax at the earliest opportunity.”

That is the extent of the motion. It is very simple and straightforward. Liberal Democrats who are in the Chamber today—for some are actually present—have repeatedly claimed to back a mansion tax. After going along with the Chancellor’s tax cut for millionaires, a failing economic plan, a VAT rise and a trebling of tuition fees, they finally have a chance to vote for something that was in their manifesto.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

Let us be realistic: the amendment was getting rather long-winded, as it is about four or five times the length of the motion. In fact, it looks like a bit of a trashing exercise and does not add to the substance of policy choices before the House. Our view is that the circumstances are very simple.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

My hon. Friend has been very generous in giving way. Does he think that now the Liberal Democrats have been exposed, they will probably hold off from voting against our proposals tonight but that when the Government bring forward their proposals, the Liberal Democrats will be in the Lobby with them?

[Chris Leslie]

Yes—especially on issues such as the bedroom tax, tax credit cuts and increase in VAT. Of course, let us not forget the tuition fee decisions that the Liberal Democrats have made. That is a matter for them, however. They must account to the electorate and they must go back and explain how they have voted today.

Let me say a little about how we would use the money raised from the mansion tax. Our view is that a fair tax system should include a 10p starting rate of income tax. We support the increases in the personal allowance, but a 10p band would mean a different tax rate for those on middle and lower incomes from that for those on higher incomes, helping the move towards a fairer tax system. Some argue that the 20p rate is adequate, but I believe that a steadier incline moving from zero tax to 10p and from 10p to 20p could be the bedrock of a more progressive tax system, sending out an important signal that tax cuts for working people are a priority.

The 10p starting rate would provide a tax incentive to enter work, especially for those on lower wages. It was a mistake to remove the 10p rate in 2007, even though it enabled the then 22p basic rate to be reduced to 20p, where it stands today. Reintroducing a 10p rate would be the right thing to do and, if the Liberal Democrats are correct that the mansion tax could raise £2 billion, the Chancellor could make that change next week in the Budget.

Just as there is support for a mansion tax from Members on the Government Benches, there is ample support for the return of a 10p starting rate for income tax, although strangely some of those Members have chosen not to take their place in the Chamber today. The hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) spoke about the 10p rate idea in his recent Adjournment debate, arguing that

“restoring the 10p rate would help the coalition to counter the war cry of its political opponents that it is only interested in cutting taxes for millionaires. It would prove to the public that ‘lower taxes for lower earners’ is not just a soundbite but that it can be a reality…the policy would be popular…it would be a symbol of the Government’s economic mission and…it would help to tackle the desperate stagnation in incomes that Britain has suffered”.—[Official Report, 22 January 2013; Vol. 557, c. 34-38WH.]

That argument was made by a Conservative Member.

European Union Economic Governance

Debate between Chris Leslie and Jim Cunningham

Wednesday 10th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

I shall deal with the nature of the changes in a moment—and there are changes. It would be a bit disingenuous to suggest that nothing is changing in this regard.

From our point of view, eurozone stability and a sensible crisis mechanism are worth while, and it is clearly in our national interest to engage strongly in discussions and reforms that promote economic stability across Europe. We will support sensible changes that benefit the United Kingdom. The core idea of improving the rescue mechanisms for eurozone countries facing severe economic difficulties makes logical sense, and it is also wise to find a permanent footing on which to base any new rules rather than relying on temporary arrangements that might either expire or be subject to legal challenge. However, the Prime Minister and the Government are protesting just a little too much that this is entirely a matter for the eurozone, and absolutely nothing to do with us. In fact, there are indirect implications for our economy because of changes that might affect economic growth in the eurozone, as well as direct policy implications that could change the way in which we operate in the United Kingdom.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend will recall that the previous Prime Minister and his Government drew up five economic tests. Had it not been for him, we would not be debating the motion today, because we would be part of the eurozone.

[Chris Leslie]

It was certainly worth punctuating the debate with that point, which my hon. Friend made forcefully and well.