UK Economy

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

It proves the chaotic nature of the market at the moment.

Let me look ahead. Most major forecasters have revised their expectations of future growth sharply downwards. There is a major loss of capacity and the potential for permanent damage to the UK’s growth prospects cannot be ruled out. We await an official assessment from the Office for Budget Responsibility, as the Chancellor announced in his statement on Monday morning. I think that an initial assessment should be given sooner rather than later, but ongoing close monitoring would be welcome, with regular reports to Parliament to ensure that that is happening. There is a prospect that the OBR will report at least a serious worsening in the public finances.

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

What assessment has my hon. Friend made of the Chancellor’s statement a couple of days ago that taxes might have to go up and be followed by further cuts? Is not this a further infliction of austerity on the British people?

[John McDonnell]

I shall come on to that later in my speech. I want to deal with the implications of the Chancellor’s statement on Monday for future Budgets, if I may. In a situation like this, it is essential to introduce some clarity. There is great uncertainty, both for those fearing for their jobs and those worried about the volatility of the financial markets over the last few days. It is up to us—I mean the whole House—to secure some clarity and a clear sense of direction in our debate.

Let me clarify why the referendum result has led to this situation. There were warnings that a vote to leave would produce this shock. Economic forecasting is, as we know, not an exact science, even at best, but every forecaster with any credibility pointed towards a significant negative shock from a leave vote. The main disagreements were about the size of that shock, and I have to say that the warnings should have been heeded. It was irresponsible of those campaigning for leave not just to gloss over them, but to make the claim that a leave vote would lead only to warm sunny uplands. The truth is that the shock is already significant and could rapidly worsen if action is not taken.

We welcome the Governor of the Bank of England’s commitment to take steps to extend liquidity provision to banks if necessary, and to stand ready with further measures. We welcome the fact that the Chancellor has been in urgent consultation during the weekend with those in the financial services industry and our international partners. We will support measures to stabilise the markets and dampen volatility, but with the firm caveat that these measures—this was the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham)—should not impose costs on households or small businesses. Despite his earlier statements, the Chancellor has ruled out his previous contractionary emergency Budget until the fiscal position is made clear, and this is to be strongly welcomed.

To move forward, we have to be honest in our assessment of the current situation if we are to ensure that the correct remedies are agreed for the future. We do not share the Chancellor’s assessment, as he knows, of the broader economic picture. His claim that the roof was fixed while the sun was shining belies the reality. The leave vote is having a greater impact because the roof has not been fixed, as we saw in the Office for Budget Responsibility’s assessment of the UK’s fiscal position that was published alongside this year’s Budget.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Osborne]

I agree with my hon. Friend that a free-floating currency is a shock-absorber that we have the benefit of. We do not have a fixed exchange rate, and of course we are not part of a single currency, so the currency can take some of the strain, and that is reflected in the currency market.

The only thing I would caution my hon. Friend on is this: in 2008 we saw a sharp fall in sterling, and that was sustained, but it did not lead to the boost in exports that people expected at that point. That was partly because other markets, including European markets, were depressed, but, as we came to discover, it was also the case that integrated supply chains these days are more international. For example, car exporters might benefit from the fall in the currency in terms of the price they sell their cars for, but they will have imported parts and will have seen import prices go up. Unfortunately retailers are also warning us that prices in supermarkets, for example, may well now rise because of the fall in the currency, but we will wait and see.

Of course the other challenge we face is from the credit rating agencies—not that everything they say is gospel. Unfortunately, we lost our triple-A rating with Standard & Poor’s and were downgraded two notches a few days ago.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

Are we still using quantitative easing, and if not, when did that end?

[Mr Osborne]

The shadow Chancellor raised questions about monetary policy. Obviously the Bank of England is independent. The MPC set out the challenging trade- off it might face between a fall in output and a rise in inflation. We will have to wait and see how MPC responds to the judgment it has to make.

The central bank has not been undertaking quantitative easing, but the arrangements put in place by my predecessor Alistair Darling—essentially, the authorisation arrangements —remain in place. In other words, the MPC will be able to use any of the monetary policy instruments in its toolkit, but that is entirely a judgment for it. We will wait to see how it responds to the challenges it faces.

Finance Bill

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Rob Marris]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right about the climate change levy. Changes in this Finance Bill effectively make the climate change levy just another tax, because it will no longer be used by the Government as a lever to change behaviour, which is why Labour dislikes the proposal. Business tax has probably gone up a bit overall, but what has happened in the economy, which the Minister described as fundamentally strong, is that employment is up by almost 2.5 million, and we salute that as a considerable achievement.

However, it has been bought on a sea of debt, on the drip, on the never-never. The national debt has gone up 60% in six years. We still have a huge annual deficit. Pay has stagnated for six years, and public sector pay will remain stagnant for another two or three years. Overall capital investment is markedly down. We have the biggest trade deficit in our history. Productivity is completely stalled. It is welcome that 2 million more people have jobs, which is good and the best route out of poverty, but almost every other economic indicator is poor and the Government propose to cut corporation tax.

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

My hon. Friend mentioned borrowing. Given the economic situation over the last few days, it seems that the Chancellor might have to borrow more money to add to the national debt, and he is now talking about increasing taxes and cutting public services as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right: if we look at the record of companies in the United Kingdom as corporation tax has decreased, we see that we have experienced increasing foreign direct investment. Indeed, since the Northern Ireland Government announced that corporation tax will be reduced in, we hope, a year and a half’s time, there has been an upsurge of interest in the number of companies that wish to consider Northern Ireland as an investment proposition. We are already the second most successful region in the United Kingdom for foreign direct investment—I suppose that this bears out the Opposition spokesman’s point—because we have emphasised the other selling points that are available to us at present, but corporation tax is the additional one that will make things easier for us.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

Coming back to something that the hon. Gentleman said earlier about the training levy, for want of a better term, employers and particularly small businesses in this country have traditionally been reluctant about that levy. What do businesses in Northern Ireland feel about the levy?

[Sammy Wilson]

Of course, all businesses will seek to emphasise the additional costs that the levy imposes on them. However, many businesses that face a shortage skills in Northern Ireland now recognise that there must be a means to ensure that we have a supply of skilled labour. Opinions differ on how to provide that supply of skilled labour and how the apprenticeship levy should be applied and used, but people now accept, given the importance of skilled labour to firms, that they have to pay for it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

6. What assessment he has made of the potential effect on the economy of the UK leaving the EU.

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

12. What assessment he has made of the potential effect of the UK leaving the EU on the economy of (a) Coventry and (b) the west midlands.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Damian Hinds)]

The projected rise in unemployment of 500,000 that I mentioned just now includes 24,000 people in Wales and 44,000 people in the west midlands. In the long term, the Treasury’s central estimate is that GDP would be lower by around £4,300 per household by 2030 than it would be otherwise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

I think we do agree on the turmoil that uncertainty can bring, and the uncertainty about future trade deals that the right hon. Gentleman raises is part of that. There is much more uncertainty as well, of course, for businesses that currently trade with other European countries and people who are employed in those countries or might be thinking of going to them. All these things generate uncertainty, which creates economic turmoil in the short run. There is a real danger of missing out on a very large number of third-party trades in the long run, when all the EU trade deals currently under negotiation are finished, which will account for some 80% of our trade.

[Mr Cunningham]

Can the Minister say what the economic benefits are of us being in the European Union, particularly in places such as Coventry and the west midlands, and more importantly what the impact on manufacturing is?

[Damian Hinds]

The automotive sector in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and elsewhere is particularly important. It is a high value-added sector that has been a great British success story in recent years and it has complex cross-border supply chains, so it is unsurprising that those speaking out in favour of remain include the chief executives of Jaguar Land Rover and Rolls-Royce and the chairman of the Coventry and Warwickshire local enterprise partnership.

HMRC Office Closure (Walsall)

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 10th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Valerie Vaz]

I agree. The Government seem to do some things well—impose contracts on junior doctors, summarily change employees’ contracts, and dismiss them with no consultation and no negotiation.

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

You would think that the Government would be a model for industrial relations, bearing in mind the fact that we pass the legislation in this place; instead, they are becoming the worst employer. More importantly, has my hon. Friend had cases where the public have faced long delays? I had cases like that over Christmas, and I have raised them here many times. At the end of the day, this is about the impact on the public as well as the staff.

[Valerie Vaz]

I absolutely agree. When unions and the Government are working together, and when unions and employers are working together, there can be a situation where something like the steel industry does not just collapse and we can move forward. We cannot move forward on anything unless we have negotiation and consultation, and that was clearly lacking in this case.

The sad thing about this case is that the majority of the employees are women. The vast majority have worked in the Walsall office for 15 years, and some have worked there for over 30 years. Their average age is 50—yet again, we have women of a certain age being discriminated against, and those with long service and knowledge being ignored. This will have a huge impact on their lives.

Where are the consultation, discussion and negotiation that are the bedrock of a civilised society? Will the Minster look at why some redeployment appeals are still outstanding? It is not clear how many people fall within the requirements regarding reasonable daily travel to Birmingham. What is the position of those who are out of scope? Could staff be offered redeployment in a nearer office, such as Wolverhampton? Could the three administrative assistants be offered promotion? Could long-serving staff be offered enhanced early retirement?

It is in everyone’s interests to have a modern, fit-for-purpose office and up-to-date facilities—the Minister, I and everyone else agree on that. However, I would ask him not to close the office. Given the length of experience there, new work can be taken on. That would save money on rent and relocation.

The staff at Pattison House have given all these years to their country, and there is an accountability issue in terms of HMRC as a non-ministerial Government body. If HMRC is accountable to Parliament, the Minister should be able to look at the reasonable suggestions I have made. He may say that this is an operational matter, but that means that he is powerless in the face of an important department, and HMRC is not then accountable to Parliament. That would make a mockery of the Prime Minister’s anti-corruption summit, which will be held on Thursday, because HMRC should be focusing its efforts on closing the tax gap, not closing offices. There will be no one in HMRC offices with local knowledge who can assist the public to pay their taxes without the help of accountancy or legal trickery.

I hope the Minister will respond positively for the sake of the staff and their families. We owe that to them for their years of public service.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

No, I do not accept the description of debt management as a deskilled role. Debt management often involves making judgments on whether, for example, a business should enter into a time-to-pay arrangement, which is a highly skilled and sensitive role. HMRC’s assessment is that the teams in Walsall are well placed to be retrained to perform this role within debt management. Debt management is not an unskilled role within HMRC.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

Would the staff transferred to Birmingham be on the same pay grades, or would there be differences? What would happen to somebody who was put into a lower grade and did not want to go into it?

[Mr Gauke]

As far as I am aware, there is no suggestion that people will be put into a lower grade as a consequence of these changes. In a couple of cases, HMRC is looking at whether the move will involve a promotion for those members of staff, but there is no suggestion that anyone would have a reduction in pay. As I outlined earlier, this has to be worked out on a one-to-one basis. Staff may find that they are getting a contribution for up to three years for their additional travel costs as a consequence of a move.

Iraq Inquiry Report

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Thursday 14th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

I am delighted to take part in this debate. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and others on securing this extremely important debate. I agree with my right hon. Friend. When the former Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary, Lord Hurd, described the delay in the publication of the report as a scandal, he was absolutely right. Many of us in this House were absolutely horrified by the way in which Sir John Chilcot buried his head in the sand amidst the criticism that was, I think last year or in 2014, all around. My right hon. Friend set out the timetable according to which we were assured action would be taken and the report published, but we have been strung along, and as has been said, it is the bereaved who are paying the price for delay.

The Conservative party, as the official Opposition in 2007, called for a public inquiry into the reasons for the Iraq war and the conduct thereof. We initiated that debate on 11 June 2007, and I happened to wind up for the Opposition as a shadow Defence Minister. The Labour party opposed it. The then Foreign Secretary described an inquiry as “self-indulgent” retrospection and our debate as “opportunistic”. Of course, that changed, because Gordon Brown, in 2009, eventually ordered the Chilcot inquiry, but by then six years had passed.

We were not alone in supporting an inquiry; some in the Labour party also supported it. I cannot remember but I am sure the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) did. The late Michael Meacher certainly did. We gave three reasons why we felt an inquiry was needed. First, there was a lack of any discussion, in the run-up to the conflict, about post-conflict reconstruction. I remember going to Washington at the time. The debate there, in the run-up to the conflict, was all about post-conflict reconstruction. The fact that it was not delivered is another matter, but we were not even having that debate here. We had a debate on 30 January 2003, initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman), then shadow Secretary of State for International Development, during which the Government were simply not willing to discuss the aftermath of any conflict.

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

I do not think we learn anything. Look at the situation in the middle east: Libya—a mess; Egypt—to some extent a dictatorship. We have learned nothing from these interventions, and all because we never planned any post-war reconstruction.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

Indeed. I could not possibly disagree. That is entirely right.

Secondly, we felt the inquiry was necessary

“to consider how we should adjust our whole military posture to the new type of military operations we face, including at the tactical level: whether our soldiers, sailors and airmen are getting the right training package for that type of warfare; whether…we have the right equipment for the task; whether we have the correct balance of forces, and what needs to be done so that we do not become disproportionately reliant on urgent operational requirements—a kind of panic-buying formula—to make up the shortfall in equipment.”—[Official Report, 11 June 2007; Vol. 461, c. 583.]

Thirdly and finally, there had already been several Select Committee inquiries, and there was a real need for a comprehensive inquiry by an independent committee established by the Government. We suggested there was real urgency. In introducing today’s debate, my right hon. Friend mentioned the effect of the time lag. At the time, I said:

“The reason for the relative urgency is that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks”—

now Lord Hague—

“said, while the events are fresh in people’s minds and the e-mails have not been destroyed, we need to learn whatever lessons we can from the background to operations in Iraq so far, and to apply them to Afghanistan before it is too late.”—[Official Report, 11 June 2007; Vol. 461, c. 585.]

So there was an imperative, and a great disservice has been done to everybody, in that the inquiry was not established in the immediate aftermath of the Iraq war but indeed was six years late. As I said, the bereaved are owed an explanation.

Tax Avoidance and Evasion

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Wednesday 13th April 2016 Commons Chamber

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

As the co-founder and chair of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption, I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to today’s debate.

The issues under discussion are, rightly, very high on the public agenda, and a great number of my constituents have contacted me to share their concerns. They, like many others, have a strong sense of both the real and the perceived injustice in our system, whereby the vast majority of people in this country play by the same rules and have very little choice about the contribution they make to the public purse. This is not about envy or anger at wealth, whether it be earned or inherited; it is about the fact that those at the top end of the income scale seem to play by an entirely different set of rules. That, understandably, makes people angry, and the Government must take genuine steps to level the playing field and regain the public’s trust.

One of the assertions that has been made in representations to me is that the solutions to the problem are easy. Although I do not necessarily subscribe to that view, I do think that there are a few relatively simple steps that the Government could take to make a significant difference. Those steps would bring about much greater transparency about the ownership of individual and company assets and wealth, and enable a very clear view of who the beneficiaries are of investments and funds, whether they are held here in the UK or in offshore trusts and accounts. It is essential to deal properly not only with aggressive tax avoidance that Parliament never intended to be pursued, but with tax evasion and other criminal activity, such as fraud and corruption. Too often, both issues go hand in hand.

In his statement on the Panama papers on Monday, the Prime Minister acknowledged:

“Under current legislation it is difficult to prosecute a company that assists with tax evasion”.—[Official Report, 11 April 2016; Vol. 608, c. 26.]

He is absolutely correct. In fact, the challenge is understated, and I will briefly explain why. At present, under UK law, in order to hold a company criminally liable, prosecutors must identify an individual sufficiently senior within the organisation—usually at board level—as its “controlling mind” with knowledge of the offence. In an increasingly globalised world where multinational organisations, which have very complicated structures and management arrangements, are the norm, that sets an extremely high bar for prosecutors to cross. By contrast, in the US a company can be held vicariously liable in criminal law for the actions of its employees undertaken in the course of their employment.

The Government seemed to acknowledge that inadequacy in UK law and included proposals in their 2015 manifesto to introduce corporate criminal liability for economic offences. Yet by September 2015 those proposals were quietly dropped, a fact that came to light only in response to a written parliamentary answer. The grounds stated by the Minister who gave that answer were that

“there is little evidence of economic crime going unpunished.”

That was, frankly, a ridiculous assertion, and I hope that the Panama papers have finally put that notion to bed.

It is clearly unacceptable that, here in the UK, prosecutors of economic crime—tax evasion, corruption and fraud—are effectively operating with one hand tied behind their backs. Indeed, David Green, the director of the Serious Fraud Office—the law enforcement agency tasked with prosecuting the most serious and complex economic crimes—has been clear for some time about the inadequacy of our law. As he pointed out in an interview with the Evening Standard in January, the identification principle

“is difficult because inevitably the email trail tends to dry up at middle management and evidentially it is hard to prove.”

I put that point to the Prime Minister on Monday, and I was glad to hear him commit to going away and looking at the proposals. I hope that Ministers are listening carefully to this debate and that those at the Ministry of Justice in particular will report back to him as a matter of urgency. The proposal is to extend the application of the section 7 offence—which I will explain—not only to tax evasion, but to all economic crime.

This is the nub of the issue. As the Prime Minister announced on Monday—indeed, he had announced it previously, but no follow-up action has been taken as yet—the Government intend to legislate so that corporates can be held criminally liable for failing to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion. That is an acceptance that the current corporate liability framework, which applies to all economic crimes, does not work.

The Government propose to do that by creating an offence modelled on section 7 of the Bribery Act 2010, introduced by the last Labour Government, that holds a company liable if it fails to take “adequate steps” to prevent bribery by its employees. In other words, it puts the onus on companies to ensure that proper compliance procedures are in place and holds them criminally liable if they do not do so. That model, which already applies to the offence of bribery, will apply to tax evasion under the Government’s proposals.

Why stop at tax evasion? Why not extend the provision to cover failure to prevent other crimes, such as fraud or money laundering, as promised in the Conservative party’s 2015 manifesto? The director of the Serious Fraud Office has suggested that that is a workable solution. Back in 2013, he highlighted the benefits:

“Such an approach would merely add a criminal sanction to existing obligations; it would assist in the reform of poor corporate culture which contributed to the crash; it would underpin the recovery by encouraging clean and stable markets; it would increase investor confidence, assist in more rapid prosecutions and dovetail well with deferred prosecution agreements.”

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

My hon. Friend mentioned earlier the situation in America. None of the bankers in this country was held to account for the crash, but a number of those in America were. Does she agree that something should be done about that?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend raises a very important point. The banks in America have paid significant fines as a result of their behaviour ahead of the crash, but it has been significantly more difficult to ensure that justice is done here. That is the very reason why the issue needs to be addressed. The solution is very simple and workable. The Government already intend to legislate on tax evasion, so it would simply be a case of expanding the number of offences to which the legislation applies.

I strongly urge the Government to look closely at part 2 of schedule 17 to the Crime and Courts Act 2013. It sets out a useful list of offences, covering all manner of fraudulent and corrupt offences—from false accounting and forgery, to fraudulent trading, bribery and money laundering—that the Government’s proposed new offence could equally apply to. The work is all done. The ducks are lined up; the Government just need to implement the change.

The revelations in the Panama papers represent a pivotal moment that the Government must not squander. The Panama papers have not just highlighted issues relating to tax evasion and, indeed, avoidance, but raised even greater questions about illicit financial flows, laundered money and the proceeds of crime, and about how companies exploit tax havens and secretive jurisdictions to facilitate that. Ahead of next month’s anti-corruption summit the Government should send out to the rest of the world the clearest of messages that the UK is serious about tackling economic crime in all of its forms, and its facilitation. I urge the Government to take the opportunity to take this important step to arm our law enforcement agencies and courts with the ability properly to hold companies to account.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)]

Forgive me for not being in the Chamber at the start of the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was not here because I had absolutely no intention of speaking. However, when I listened to the shadow Chancellor’s speech, I found myself understanding his frustrations and understanding the points he made. I guess the problem is that his solution seems to be some sort of socialist utopia, which I do not think will work. I see no example in history of its doing so. I have, however, been forced to consider what a viable solution to this state of affairs might be.

Understandably, as many colleagues have already illustrated ably in their speeches, the general public are angry and frustrated. There is a palpable sense that there has been a breakdown in trust not only in us in this Chamber, but in systems of government, whether it is the tax system or, given the latest dreadful case in Burton, the social work system. Across the board, the public are deeply mistrustful, and increasingly so, as well as deeply cynical. That is understandable, because this is not the only tax scandal. We have had Google and many others, including in relation to corporation tax.

I can understand why the average man and woman in the street is thinking, “If it is good for me, why is it not good for them?” The response should not be hypocrisy and it certainly should not be envy; it should be to ask what we can practically do in the globalised economy we all inhabit. I readily admit that there are failings in our current capitalist model, and I rarely see contributions from people who recognise that or, indeed, who have thought about what might replace it. A notable exception is my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman).

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned public anger. Measures against the recession have been going on for about six years. The public are weary of that, just as the public in America are weary of what is happening there. The public feel aggrieved at us because the recession and the measures to deal with it have been too harsh and have gone on for too long. That is one reason why people feel that they bear the biggest part of the burden.

[Dr Lee]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, but the political and philosophical point in it is that he does not believe that reducing the size of the state is necessarily in the interests of the majority. I do, and that is where we diverge, but the hon. Gentleman is right that there is a sense that the middle are carrying the burden and the very rich are not. However, all these things that we have been discussing, about which I have no knowledge—I wish I had money in trusts, offshore or elsewhere—are legal. If something is legal, I believe that it is legitimate. To those who believe that there is a moral component to paying tax, I say, “Get real.”

We probably need to look at the system first. Earlier, I referred to the corporation tax scandal, Google and the like. I know that the Government have made significant progress on reducing corporation tax, but corporation tax is out of date in a globalised economy. Let us just scrap it. We either make a decision not to spend £42 billion, or we move to a form of taxation that is not so easily avoidable, be it employee taxation, a sales tax or a property tax. However, the perpetuation of corporation tax in the world I see is plainly nonsense.

On the point about London property ownership, it is all about avoiding stamp duty. Scrap stamp duty. We should either not spend the £7 billion or find another way of levying the tax. Perhaps people should be taxed for ownership on an ongoing basis. Perhaps council taxes should be increased. I do not know—one can choose. However, corporation tax and stamp duty are clearly not fit for purpose and are easily avoidable.

The other challenge is intergenerational inequity. Significant sums of money are tied up in particular generations. Much has been said about the Prime Minister’s inheritance tax arrangements, which are totally to be expected—anybody with any wealth will mitigate inheritance tax. Who in that position would not? Let us not be hypocrites. The problem is that significant wealth is tied up in a particular generation, who were born post war. How will we facilitate the transfer of that wealth fairly and equitably? Answers on a postcard, please. At the moment, we do not have a system that works, and we need one.

I move on to transparency and the need for simplification. I am attracted to the Scandinavian—Norwegian and Swedish—model of publishing tax and wealth online. I support that; I have absolutely nothing—as far as I am aware—to hide. When I mention that to Conservative colleagues in particular, they worry about privacy. If that is founded—and those arguments are strong—the Prime Minister should not have published his tax returns, and nobody else should do so. It should be all or nothing. Each and every one of us in the Chamber, and indeed those watching in the Public Gallery, has a share in our democracy and in our Government functioning. For that share to be valued, we must all trust that it is legitimate and fair and that everyone is playing by the rules. I am therefore drawn to the Norwegian model, with all the necessary clarifications of legitimate application.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

I do not understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. He is digressing on details of capital gains tax when the point I am clearly making is about the context in which the cut has been made, where the burden of this Budget very much falls on the poorest and the most vulnerable in our society. If that is compassionate Conservatism, bring the nasty party back!

I am pleased and relieved that the Government have backed down on this issue within less than a week. However, I am angry that those people who rely on the personal independence payment, including 1,100 people in Newcastle upon Tyne North, have endured days and weeks of huge anxiety about how they would cope if this level of support was cut. It is unforgivable. I remain equally concerned about how the existing reforms to PIP are quite clearly failing disabled people. Constituents continue to get in touch with me following my recent question to the Prime Minister because they have been told that they are no longer eligible for a Motability vehicle despite its clearly being the only means by which they can leave the house, or indeed get to work. The new PIP assessment is fundamentally flawed. I strongly urge the Work and Pensions Secretary and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to revisit this issue with fresh eyes and look at reforming the current PIP changes before they embark on any further welfare reform.

Despite the Chancellor’s so-called

“revolution in the way we govern England”,

with the pledge last May to give local areas greater control over local transport, housing, skills and healthcare, it appears that he does not place the same faith in local communities when it comes to our schools. Last week’s Budget confirmed that, far from handing control to local communities, the Government are about to embark on the greatest ever centralisation of our schools system, which will see an end to the role, now a century old, of democratically accountable local authorities as the stewards of our children’s education. My Front-Bench colleagues have already highlighted the glaring black hole in the finances of this plan—£560 million—which raises questions about the extent to which the schools budget will be raided to make up the shortfall.

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

My hon. Friend mentions the schools budget. I do not know whether she is aware that in Coventry one or two academies are already in serious trouble because of falling numbers as a result of certain changes in the education budgets.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s point. It is not just local academies that are in trouble—there are some much bigger and more serious questions that we need to raise. First, why are the Government doing this? There is no proof whatsoever that academies per se raise educational standards. It is a distraction that schools now need to focus on this rather than on their educational attainment. Secondly, how will the Government enable the local political leadership to drive up standards and work together, as happened so effectively with the London Challenge, if the power and decision making is so centralised in Whitehall?

Is the Department for Education even fit for purpose to deal with over 20,000 schools across the country—about 3,400 secondaries and almost 17,000 primaries? There are signs that it is already struggling with its current workload of 4,000 schools. As the Education Committee, of which I am a member, recently uncovered, the Department could not even deliver its annual accounts to Parliament in time and required a statutory extension, and there remains doubt as to when it will ever be able to present them. This mass rush to conversion will only add to the current mess. We need only look at the fiasco of the free schools application process, where there is no clear rhyme or reason to the Department’s decisions to authorise new schools.

We see a Department in disarray. Of particular concern for my constituents is how the forced academisation process will fit alongside the large-scale programme of house building that is planned for our area. As a result of the coalition’s national planning policy framework, some 21,000 new homes are expected to be built in Newcastle by 2030, a large proportion of which will be in my constituency. That will require new school capacity, but who will be the guiding mind that will match and create that new school capacity in an area that will be controlled by Whitehall? Newcastle City Council already finds itself in the impossible position of being unable to establish new community schools to cope with existing demand. How on earth will it be able to deliver the right school places across Newcastle upon Tyne North when every school is accountable to the Secretary of State?

Finally, in addition to the fact that apprenticeships were not mentioned in the Chancellor’s Budget even though we were promised that they would be, another glaring omission was the lack of any announcement about how the Government intend to protect our regional airports from the impact of devolving air passenger duty to Scotland. That is crucial to Newcastle airport, which supports 12,000 jobs in the region, and through which £300 million of goods are exported every year. All talk of a northern powerhouse will be completely undermined if the Chancellor fails to deal with the issue urgently.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am interested in something that the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) said when he mentioned Denis Healey. There was another individual who said, “You never had it so good” in 1959, but by 1963 the economy of this country was in very serious trouble. People should be very careful when they start sloganising like that.

To be charitable about this Budget, the most one can say about it is that it is divisive. Frankly, it puts the burden of the national debt and the national economy on the shoulders of the poorest. Over the past few days—I will not rehearse it now—we have had the fiasco with the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. If the Chancellor had an economic plan, why was he blown off course over the past 48 hours or so? He would not have been blown off course if he knew what his economic plan was. Did he not know the implications of the cuts he was inflicting on the poorest members of our society?

During the general election, the Conservatives bandied about a figure for cuts in benefits—I think it was £12 billion —but when they were pushed to spell out exactly where they would find that sum, they never answered the question. There has been a deception on the British public based on the argument that the country was in an economic mess that they inherited when in fact it was the world economic situation that had deteriorated. If Ministers really want to know about this, they should watch the second part of the BBC 2 programme about Obama. The first part was about how Obama dealt with the debt that he inherited—from a conservative Republican, George Bush, by the way. Interestingly, at that stage Obama spent $85 billion on bailing out the motorcar industries, so I have no doubt there was an economic problem.

The Government are preparing the ground for some of these measures by always hinting at the international economic situation, so if we listen to them very closely, we can expect more cuts. It is no economic strategy to continually inflict cuts on the poorer people in society, and on local government and the public services. On the one hand they say they value those in the public services, but on the other they only give them a 1% wage increase. If they really value the nurses and the doctors in this country, then they ought to give them a decent increase.

Equally, in fairness to the Government, I have to say that I certainly welcome the help given to small businesses. That is an important factor, because 3 million or 4 million jobs have been created in this country by small businesses, but sometimes they are picked up by the larger companies. People tend to forget that.

Not enough is being invested in skills, and we must be careful about that. It is one thing to have a target of 200,000 apprentices, but the question is: are they quality apprenticeships? More importantly, we had the recent example of student nurses, whose grants have been cut. A married woman who suddenly wants to study part time will no longer qualify for that grant.

Once again, the Government have placed the burden on local authorities. Over the next few years, Coventry City Council will have to find between £70 million and £90 million for something that has been slipped out in the Budget. Not a lot of people have picked up on this, and it certainly has not been mentioned today, but Government grant will be shifted on to local authorities. When local authorities have to put up council tax to counter that and to deliver public services, the Government may come along and call local authorities prolific spenders, or they may want to cap it three years down the road. These are things that we should be conscious of. In the west midlands, the police budget is 80% funded by Government grant. Can people not see the implications for those services and for local government in terms of jobs? As I have indicated, local government is paying a terrible price, along with the poor of this country.

I will finish by talking about academies. An academy is closing in Woodlands ward in Coventry, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson). I do not want to intrude on his territory, but I intend to start taking the matter up with Ministers, as a route for consultation, and with the local authority.

Enterprise Bill [Lords]

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Burrowes]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I saw that “but” coming. We have a job to do in Parliament. We do not simply devolve every decision out to our constituents. We should listen to our constituents. I am not sure whether he has looked at his mailbag, but I have looked at mine, and many shop workers, faith groups and others have asked me, “Why are we doing this? Why are we trying to unpick something that is fairly settled, even if it is not perfect?” I have listened to my constituents. We have important principles as well. The Sunday trading arrangement is complex, and it is our duty to look at it carefully, to consult widely and to scrutinise it fairly. None of those things has happened to the extent that they did in the ’90s and ’80s. It should not surprise us that there is a lot of cross-party concern. I would agree with my hon. Friend if this were a wholly devolving measure, but it is not. It is based on a principle that we would have to sign up to.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Burrowes]

In a moment. When we make this decision here in Parliament, everyone who votes against amendment 1 will have to agree with the premise that deregulation is good for businesses, families and workers. Members have to make this decision; we cannot simply devolve it to local authorities.

That is the premise of the case that the Government are making today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

There is another facet to this issue. One the one hand, the Government say that they are trying to save high streets, but on the other hand, the Bill will only strengthen the supermarkets and will therefore have an effect on high streets. Worse still, employers have ways to force workers to work extra hours on a Sunday. All those who have ever worked in industry know the tricks.

EU Referendum: Timing

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mark Spencer]

To be absolutely clear, I give no more weight to an English opinion than to a Scottish opinion. They are both completely valid. I recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. What I am saying to SNP colleagues is that our constituents have the ability to separate the issues and to understand the enormity of the decisions they are making—who will govern Scotland, who will govern Wales, who will be the next Mayor of London and whether our relationship with the European Union should change or remain the same, or whether we should come out completely.

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

The hon. Gentleman knows that many people in his constituency, as in mine, would rather the referendum was separate from the local elections. He knows that as well as I do.

[Mark Spencer]

I have good news for the hon. Gentleman: the referendum will be separate from the local elections. They will be at least six weeks apart. At the risk of bursting his bubble, I say to him that while many people in this place are very focused on political issues, many of my constituents are busy going about their normal business. They are thinking about paying their mortgage, where to go on holiday and whether their kids will get into the school of their choice. Europe is not as high on their political agenda as it is for some in this place.

At some point, we will be told the date of the referendum. We can then have six weeks of campaigning to establish which way we want to vote. By the end of those six weeks, I guarantee that our constituents will be fed up to the back teeth with the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

That is another important point that has not been raised before. It is one of a number of essential points that need to be considered.

Another argument I have heard is that people will get bored. When people are thinking about their long-term future and they vote, should their vote actually mean something or should they vote for people who come to this institution but then find that their views are overridden by bureaucrats in Brussels or by judges in the European Court? That, to me, is a fundamental issue. Given the impact that the European Union has had on the lives of so many people throughout the United Kingdom, I cannot imagine that they will be bored by the debate. I have addressed a few campaign meetings. I spoke at a Grassroots Out meeting not long ago, and the one thing I noticed about that audience was that they were not bored by politics in general, or by the politics of discussing the European Union. They were raring to go: they wanted to get into the campaign. I believe that this “boredom factor” is another straw man.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

Anyone who took part in the Scottish referendum knows that this referendum will not be boring. I was involved in the 1975 referendum, and that was not boring. In fact, this referendum will generate a great deal of heat. I think that the real reason the Government are rushing it is the problem that they have with their right wing, which will try to sabotage it.

[Sammy Wilson]

I think the hon. Gentleman is right. The campaign will not be boring, and nor will the issues, because they are so fundamental to people’s lives.

Another argument that has been advanced, notably by the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass), is that the longer the campaign goes on, the more destabilising it will be for the United Kingdom and its economy. That was the Labour party’s argument for not having a referendum in the first place. It did not apply then, and it does not apply now. It was significant that the hon. Lady could not even give any examples of investors fleeing the United Kingdom or withholding investment from the United Kingdom, or of jobs moving out of the United Kingdom, simply because of the prospect of a referendum on our membership of Europe.

This is an important issue, and one that should be given full consideration. It should not be squeezed as it has been. I have not even touched on the issue of designation, but the Minister indicated that even that might be squeezed, which would cause further suspicion in people’s minds. We need to have a positive debate. The right hon. Member for Gordon spoke of the benefits of membership, and of his wish to extol them to the people. I want an opportunity to extol to the people of Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom the great life that we can have outside the EU: the great life that we can have when the chains are off our arms and off our economy, when we can decide how we can spend our own money, decide who we let into our country and who we keep out, decide what laws we want and how they are applied, and decide how we trade with other parts of the world.

That is the positive debate that I want to have, and I want it to continue throughout June, July, August and September. It will not be boring, and it will give the people of the United Kingdom, including the people of Northern Ireland, an opportunity to make their decision on the basis of the facts, not on the basis of the scare stories, and not on the basis of a compressed campaign that the Government hope can take place quickly so that only their side of the argument is heard.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 19th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. In fact, it has been stated that not only will 2.5 million people benefit directly from the change in the national living wage in April, but up to 6 million whose salaries are very close to that hourly rate will benefit as well.

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

When will the Chancellor, and in particular the Minister, give public sector workers a decent pay rise that reflects some of the jobs that they do for us?

[Harriett Baldwin]

We believe that every worker in the country will benefit from the change in the national living wage, which is an important part of the long-term economic plan, but, as the hon. Gentleman will know, this year public sector workers received pay rises that were above inflation.