Business of the House

Debate between Jim Shannon and Lucy Powell

Thursday 25th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend’s point. Every town and village contributes greatly to the life of their local communities. It is about not just libraries or banking facilities, but a whole range of services and tackling issues such as rural and village crime. That is why the Government are committed to looking at all those issues, but also giving local communities the power to determine the future of their own towns and villages.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Leader of the House for the opportunity to ask a question regarding the necessity of safeguarding freedom of religion or belief. As I indicated to her, I would like to turn our attention to Mexico. In April, more than 150 Baptist Protestants in Hidalgo state in Mexico were forcibly displaced after their electricity was cut off, their church vandalised and access to their homes blocked. The inaction of local government officials has prolonged the suffering of the families, who currently face exorbitant fines based on their conversion to Protestantism. Will the Leader of the House join me in condemning those violations of freedom of religion or belief in Hidalgo state, and will she ask the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to raise the issue with its counterparts in Mexico?

[Lucy Powell]

I am pleased to see the hon. Gentleman in his place today. I would expect nothing less. I was also pleased to see that, during his Adjournment debate this week, he was intervened on many times. I have heard him many times in this House and at business questions raise the issue of freedom of religion or belief. He will know that the Government are committed to continuing to support those measures and that we will continue to champion them in government.

Code of Conduct and Modernisation Committee

Debate between Jim Shannon and Lucy Powell

Thursday 25th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, his party has four other Members in this House; the House is considered in terms of its Members, not in terms of the popular vote. What he describes is a consequence of formulas that are long-standing and have brought about effective representation on many Select Committees.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I understand the mathematics—one party has over 400 Members, another has more than 120, another has 72, and so on—and I understand how Committees are made up, and how the Government and the Opposition work. However, when it comes to more parochial things, and while I am ever mindful that the Government have the right to a majority, does the Leader of the House agree that the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the Scottish Affairs Committee and the Welsh Affairs Committee should include more representation from regional areas?

[Lucy Powell]

Perhaps there is an opportunity for a wider debate on the make-up of Select Committees. I can see some of the issues, but I reiterate that the Modernisation Committee needs to strike a balance between being effective and making fast progress. It needs to be representative, but not too big. I reiterate to the smaller parties my commitment to having ongoing, meaningful engagement, and to having them come regularly to the Committee to give evidence and views. Of course, the proceedings of the Committee will be fully transparent; we will have calls for evidence, and our deliberations will be regularly published for the whole House to see.

Business of the House

Debate between Jim Shannon and Lucy Powell

Thursday 18th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on asking his first question. As a former teacher, he is laying down a clear marker that special educational need and children’s wellbeing will be at the forefront of his agenda as the new MP for St Helens North. He will have seen that there will be an education debate next week; I hope he can raise these important issues then.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I very much welcome the Leader of the House to her position. I look forward to a weekly relationship of questions and answers and wish her well.

I am very concerned about the Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief Bill, a private Member’s Bill that Fiona Bruce, the then Member for Congleton, introduced under the last Government and that the then Prime Minister was going to bring in. Unfortunately, such was his haste for an election that the Bill was not included in the wash-up before the last Friday; in another week, it would have been law. What can we do to make sure that that private Member’s Bill can be proceeded with? When the Prime Minister was in opposition, I had discussions with him about ensuring that the special envoy is in place. Will the Leader of the House discuss that in Cabinet, or should we bring forward a debate?

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Jim Shannon and Lucy Powell

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 29th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

I strongly agree; I will come to that point shortly.

The Government’s next justification was that it was necessary to rip up the withdrawal agreement because the European Union is ripping it up itself, but we have heard differing accounts of this: the Northern Ireland Secretary said throughout the summer:

“The Government is extremely confident that the EU is working in good faith”.

Which is it? We are still not clear about that.

Perhaps the most dangerous of all the contortions relates to Northern Ireland. The shifting justifications of the Government over the last three weeks have added to the sense that they are using Northern Ireland as a pawn in a wider negotiating strategy. Remember, this is a deal that the Prime Minister told the House was

“in perfect conformity with the Good Friday agreement”—[Official Report, 19 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 583.]

Callous or careless? Untrustworthy or incompetent? The Government are playing a dangerous game, and it is the people and businesses of Northern Ireland who risk paying the price.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the shadow Minister for the constructive way in which she is putting forward her point of view. Does she agree that new clause 7, which was tabled by my colleagues, among others, and has some supporters in the House, is essential to ensure the viability of businesses in my constituency and across the whole of Northern Ireland whose biggest trading partner is the UK? Does she further agree that Northern Ireland cannot be left at the whim of Europe and that we must have security when these measures go before the House?

[Lucy Powell]

Yes, I do agree. I will mention that point in a moment.

For the people of Northern Ireland, this is not the latest episode in a Brexit drama; it is a profoundly worrying moment. Little wonder that the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland himself, Sir Declan Morgan—a widely respected voice—said that the Government’s actions “undermine trust”. Let us remember that this issue could scarcely be more sensitive. In order to ensure the continuity of the Good Friday agreement in all its dimensions—recognising the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland sharing a land border with the Republic, and therefore the special responsibility and role that the UK and the Republic of Ireland have as co-guarantors of the Good Friday agreement—any change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland rests on the consent of the people of Northern Ireland in their plurality. That is why it is essential that the protocol upholds Northern Ireland’s place in the internal market and that this delicate compromise builds the confidence of all communities. That is the principle behind new clause 7, which we have co-sponsored with the DUP and Alliance.

But instead of proceeding with due caution and going the extra mile to seek consensus, the Government resort to legislative vandalism. They also stoop pretty low—into “straight bananas” land—with scare stories about what the Bill is needed to prevent, some of which we have heard again today. The Prime Minister warned that the Bill was necessary because the EU wants to enforce an embargo on the transport of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and are

“holding out the possibility of blockading food and agricultural transports within our own country.”—[Official Report, 14 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 43.]

Yet nowhere in the Bill do the Government safeguard against this. Despite the many amendments at every stage, there is nothing at all in the Bill regarding the movement of goods from GB to NI.

Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill

Debate between Jim Shannon and Lucy Powell

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 3rd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to be on the Front Bench and at the Dispatch Box again as the shadow Business Minister, although I would have much preferred to make this speech safely and socially distanced in sunny Manchester—no offence.

I reiterate the thanks of my colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), to the Minister, the Secretary of State and their teams for all the engagement we have had on the Bill. Our objective, as the Opposition, is to be constructive, and to ensure that businesses get the support they need now and in the long term, to keep the number of insolvencies in the coming weeks and months as low as possible. As my right hon. Friend said, we support the overarching objectives of the Bill. However, we hope the Government can give us some reassurances in Committee. Many others today have voiced similar concerns.

I thank many colleagues from across the House for their speeches in this interesting debate. Obviously, the highlight was the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson), who was a bit nervous about coming last out of his intake; but as a fellow Mancunian, I reiterate that the best was definitely saved till last.

Although we back the Bill today, we are clear that it should be the last resort for many businesses. There is much more for the Government to do now to support businesses so that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) eloquently put it, the measures debated today are not necessary. Every previously viable business that needs to call on these insolvency changes because of our decision to shut down the economy for public health measures, is a business that has been failed. Ministers have recognised the huge scale of the situation, with the unprecedented support they have established to retain jobs and support businesses. That has been the right thing to do and we have supported it. However, as we enter the end of the lockdown phase, the challenges ahead are becoming clearer. More must now be done to rescue more businesses, and ensure that the recovery is as short and strong as possible. We must stop a second, and possibly a third or fourth wave of insolvencies arising from unmanageable debts and creditors. Any business that goes bust as a result of public health measures will lengthen and deepen the recession and leave long-lasting scars on unemployment levels and the wider economy.

Labour Members firmly believe that the cost of not doing all we can now to save businesses will be far higher than the cost of action today. Ultimately, the taxpayer will pay for the cost of failure, through lost tax revenues and higher unemployment over many years, not months. The Government need to renew their support package over the coming period, as it is now clear that the easing of lockdown will be longer and more complicated than was predicted at the start of this crisis. That is why we suggest that the temporary measures in the Bill should be extended today, rather than waiting until later.

Preventing insolvencies today, in and of itself, will not stave off insolvencies tomorrow, if the Government do not take a long view and ensure that businesses do not face a cliff edge. A second wave of support and sector-specific action is also required. Critically, if the recovery is based on unmanageable debt, it will be no recovery at all. In the immediate rescue phase, businesses and business organisations are asking for more discretionary grant funding to support the hardest hit businesses that have so far missed out, more flexibility with the furlough scheme, simplification of the CBIL scheme, and many other measures that have been mentioned today. Those include more clarity and joined up working on business critical issues such as quarantine measures, safety in the workplace, childcare, and shielded employees. The Government must not fall into complacency and think that their actions so far have been sufficient, because a second wave of support is urgently needed.

We have heard from a number of colleagues, notably my hon. Friends the Members for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) and for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), and the hon. Members for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), and for Strangeford (Jim Shannon)—

[Jim Shannon]

It’s not Strangeford!

[Lucy Powell]

Sorry. Strangford. It’s just that the Member of Parliament reminds me of that—no, I’m only joking.

The economic emergency we are in is affecting different sectors of the economy in different ways, some particularly and devastatingly harshly. This will be a sectoral recession, and the Government response must reflect that. We have raised with Ministers the serious issues facing our manufacturers, car manufacturing, steel makers, the aerospace and defence industry, aviation and tourism, the hospitality industry, and other areas such as football. The crisis is also affecting supply chains in those sectors, and we have already seen job losses at premier British companies such as Rolls-Royce and McLaren. There have been layoffs in the airline industry, despite the furlough scheme, and despite warnings from many industry bodies about the failure to provide adequate support and liquidity to business now. Will the Government step up with the more urgent response that is needed for those sectors, which so many Members have asked for today?

Project Birch has potential, but talking must quickly be followed by action. The promise of jam tomorrow will not pay the bills today. The feedback I get from businesses, especially some of our most important and largest employers, is about how slow the discussions with Government are, compared with the urgency of the cashflow problems. For example, our world-leading aerospace, aviation, tourism and travel sectors now face what could be a final blow from the confusion and mixed messaging about quarantine measures.

As the former Prime Minister Gordon Brown said, and as the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) has warned, the scale of the debt that companies are taking on to survive this crisis is huge. We will see a debt-laden recovery, with demand unlikely to return to normal quickly for many. Coupled with that debt, the recovery is likely to be weak, deepening its economic impact, and with insolvency spread over the months ahead.

Once companies have to start paying back loans, further insolvencies are likely to follow, with recovery choked by high levels of unemployment, and low levels of confidence. Are the Government exploring with business organisations and the finance sector ways to mitigate the month-13 problem of Government backed loans with a more long-term solution, as was suggested earlier?

Finally, we need to do more to increase and generate demand through a green recovery plan, as the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) described, and to address the youth unemployment crisis. The Government must seize the opportunity to bring forward pipeline projects to put British businesses at the forefront of the green and digital revolution.

Turning to some of the specific measures in the Bill, we support both the permanent changes to insolvency law and the temporary changes to insolvency law and corporate governance, but with some caveats. A balance must be struck between allowing businesses to survive through the crisis and not removing essential protections for creditors, pension funds and employees. The trade unions and others here today have raised some serious concerns about this, with good reason, and I will say more on that in Committee.

We believe that there must be no revision of the directors’ duty of care to their employees and suppliers. The Bill must ensure that SMEs and smaller suppliers are protected when larger companies go into administration. As the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) and others have said, the temporary measures need to be extended today.

The Bill is a big missed opportunity to address corporate governance accountability, as the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) outlined. The collapse of Carillion was a national scandal. Yet again, corporate greed and very shaky indebted finances led to the taxpayer paying the price of directors’ failures. While those directors and shareholders reaped all the gains during the good times, the collapse of Thomas Cook more recently exposed these failings further, with the taxpayer once again footing the bill for failure. We had a conversation earlier about equity stakes, but the taxpayer in effect does have an equity stake in many businesses—but only in paying for the costs of failure, not in reaping any of the rewards of success. Ministers consulted on changes to insolvency law after these collapses, and some of these changes are in the Bill, but, inexplicably, other important ones are missing.

Over the coming months, as the recession takes hold and complex financial arrangements are pushed further towards breaking point by the new loans that these companies have, we are no doubt going to see the collapse of more household names and large corporates. Why have the Government not taken this opportunity, which we stand ready to support, to bring forward the long-awaited reforms on tackling bad corporate governance and protecting creditors, employees and, ultimately, the taxpayer? We also think it is a missed opportunity to have given the small business commissioner more powers and teeth, as the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) seemed to agree.

This is a speedy process for this Bill. It is a very large Bill, and we are expediting its passage through both Houses very speedily, so we are relying on Ministers to take on board some of the concerns raised today in the spirit of us working together. We will come back to some of these missed opportunities in Committee, but, to close, I urge the Minister to press his colleagues, including the Chancellor, to do more now to protect companies from insolvency. This Bill provides a small and important safety net and breathing space, but much more needs to be done and more quickly to prevent businesses from needing that breathing space in the first place. I hope that the Government will heed the warnings of business and provide further support so that the recession to come does not leave deep and lasting damage to our economy and employment.

Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill

Debate between Jim Shannon and Lucy Powell

Committee stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 3rd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and I have said, we support the principle of the Bill and urge the Government to do more to support businesses, so that they can remain solvent and do not need to use these provisions. I hope the Minister will take the amendments in the constructive way they are meant. I will speak to each of them in turn and set out why we are seeking reassurances or think that the Government should consider changes to the Bill as it progresses. This has been a very truncated process, so we are relying on Ministers’ good will to take on board not just the comments I am about to make but those made on Second Reading, some of which were excellent suggestions.

I will take the self-explanatory amendments first. Amendments 3 to 12 inclusive would extend the time limits of the covid-19-specific provisions in the Bill. We welcome the retrospective nature of the provisions, but as we have discussed with the Minister, we suggest that the Government amend the Bill to extend the time limits for a number of the provisions, as they are insufficient given the prolonged nature of the crisis. Specifically, the suspension of the wrongful trading liability and statutory demands and winding-up petition measures should be extended to the same date as when the AGM and company account filing measures are valid, which is until 30 September.

Clearly, there was a sense from Government when the Bill was being drafted that on 30 June, most things would be back to business as usual. It is now clear that many sectors will not even be partially open for business again by that deadline—I am thinking particularly of hospitality, travel, tourism and the arts and their associated supply chains. They will not even have begun trading by the end of this month, let alone be getting back to any kind of solvency.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I agree wholeheartedly with what the hon. Lady is saying. In Northern Ireland the start date for the hospitality sector, including hotels, is 20 July, so nothing will even be in place until that time. I am a wee bit disappointed that the Minister has not acknowledged that we should have a six-month extension, maybe even to the end of the year.

[Lucy Powell]

The hon. Member makes a good point. Businesses that are struggling to keep their heads above water need certainty, and they need to know that the lifeline measures in the Bill will not be pulled from under their feet before they even reach needing them.

The point of the suspension of the wrongful trading provisions is that lots of businesses are effectively trading technically insolvent already through no fault of their own. Just as we have seen Ministers rightly extend the furlough scheme, support for the self-employed and other measures, they should get ahead of this now. Rather than having to spend time on a statutory instrument in only two or three weeks’ time, Ministers could and should take the opportunity to get this done today by agreeing to our amendment.

Amendment 2 would extend the moratorium for small businesses from 20 days to 30 days for businesses facing insolvency. The Federation of Small Businesses has called on Government to extend the moratorium period for small businesses because it does not believe that the 20-day period in the Bill is sufficient. We support that call and ask Ministers to agree to that change.

New clause 2 has not been selected, and we will have a proper look at this in the other place, but we think that the powers of the Small Business Commissioner should be strengthened, as we discussed on Second Reading.

We have long argued for some of the permanent measures in the Bill, particularly in the wake of the Carillion collapse. However, we have some concerns about what has been left out, as I said on Second Reading. There could be unintended consequences in the restructuring proposals that are being put in place that could disadvantage small businesses, employees or other unsecured creditors, such as pension funds. The Minister and I have discussed the issue in private, and it was also raised by a number of Government Members earlier. Given the crisis and the numbers of businesses already struggling, we appreciate the haste in bringing forward the changes, but we are concerned that Members and outside bodies have not had a lot of time to scrutinise the Bill and its implications, so we think the Government could consider having a period for reflection and review.

We have included as amendments a number of omissions from the 2018 consultation. The collapse of Carillion and the consequences for workers, supply-chain businesses and the public were a national scandal and an abject failure of British corporate governance policies. There have been huge repercussions for taxpayers, with unfulfilled contracts, unfinished buildings and thousands of apprentices laid off—the taxpayer had to foot the bill for those failures of corporate governance. There is, rightfully, public anger at the failure to hold people to account for such things. As ever, it seems that in such instances the profits are taken by the private sector, but the public sector foots the bill when the risks have been taken by directors over whom they have no control. Given the economic crisis that we face and the likely recession, it is clear that in the next few months and years we will see more big corporate collapses and failures, so it really is remiss of the Government not to strengthen the corporate governance measures, as they said they would do in 2018. I wish to make it clear, especially because Members raised this earlier, that the measures in our amendment are lifted entirely from the Government’s own recommendations.

Alongside key omissions from the Bill, we have heard from academics, trade unions and other organisations about some of the sweeping powers in the legislation and the fact that there could be considerable scope for the misuse of some measures to disadvantage particular groups. The next set of amendments would seek to safeguard funds for unsecured creditors, protect pension schemes, and protect employees by giving trade unions a voice in any restructuring plans. I urge the Minister to have conversations with the trade unions and to look to add our provision—or a provision like it, as Members from both sides were calling for earlier—to the Bill as it progresses to the other place.

We have concerns about how the restructuring plan will hit employees: many more could be pushed to or around the national minimum wage and lose their rights and their wages, as we are currently seeing with what British Airways is doing. Pension scheme deficits will be left unaddressed and more workers could end up losing out from their pension schemes. If this was not an emergency Bill, we would have had a lot more time to probe Ministers on these issues in a full Committee and to discuss what could be done to strengthen the protections in the Bill.

New clause 1 would insert into section 176A of the Insolvency Act 1986 a requirement that at least 30% of the proceeds from the sale of assets of businesses in administration or liquidation should be ring-fenced for payments to unsecured creditors, who often end up losing out to larger creditors, such as banks. The new clause explores a way for unsecured creditors to be guaranteed some assets so that they do not miss out. The legislation assumes that all creditors are identical and take a hit, but we know that that is not borne out in reality. There is a case for protecting the debts of SMEs and other unsecured creditors up to a specified amount, and that should not be reduced. What assurances can the Minister give that unsecured creditors will not lose out as a result of the Bill—although I know that that is what it is designed to try to achieve—and what mitigation is in place to protect unsecured creditors, who are often in the SME sector?

The intention of new clause 4 is to make pension scheme deficits a priority creditor in the event of insolvency and therefore due to be paid before unsecured creditors. The new clause would require the Government to make pension scheme deficits a priority, meaning that they would be the first in the queue in the event of insolvency and paid before other creditors. That could make employees’ votes count and offer them some protection. It is worth remembering that pension schemes are unsecured creditors in normal circumstances. If the deficit is not addressed by companies, employees face an erosion of their pension rights and their pension value goes down. Our amendment would help them to become a separate class in their own right and not to be subsumed into the amorphous mass of unsecured creditors. Members would be able to vote on any restructuring plan. That way, there would be a clear message to past and present employees. Given the nature of this debate and the number of colleagues from both sides of the House who have raised this issue, I hope that Ministers will look at the matter.

The intention of new clause 5 is to require mandatory discussion with trade union representatives once a company has entered the restructuring process. I understand that US evidence shows that restructuring plans often hit employees hardest, and many of the provisions in the Bill are based on US-European models. Wages can be reduced and employment terms changed. Many employees end up on zero-hours contracts or, as we have seen recently with BA, are sacked and then offered worse terms and conditions when they are re-employed. Pension rights are also reduced, and that could happen in the UK. I am sure that Ministers do not wish that to be an unintended consequence of the legislation, so we hope that the Minister will look at our idea, or a similar idea, and see if it can be introduced in the other place. I hope he can provide reassurance on that, not least because my boss, the shadow Secretary of State, is particularly agitated—and rightly so—about this issue.

I hope that the Minister will consider the amendments in the constructive way in which they are tabled. A number of Government amendments have been tabled, and they seem reasonable. We have not had a lot of time to study them, but I am grateful to the Minister for arranging a briefing with his officials. I look forward to his providing us with a bit more detail and assurance as the Bill proceeds.

Child Care

Debate between Jim Shannon and Lucy Powell

Wednesday 13th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for bringing this important issue to the House. Not everyone can call on grandparents, uncles, aunts or other family members to provide care—that is true right across the United Kingdom, including in my constituency of Strangford—hence the importance of the child care systems that are already in place. Does that not underline the point that an extra tax allowance should be available for those who are working, to enable them to take full advantage of child care services?

[Lucy Powell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. It is a good point that many people rely on paid child care, not the support of their families, which is why this evening’s debate is so important.

The allowance of child care costs that can be claimed through tax credits has been reduced from 80% to 70%, losing a family with two children £30 a week or £1,560 a year. With the introduction of universal credit in April, things are set to get even worse for the lowest-paid families. A recent report by the Children’s Society, “The Parent Trap”, found that the lowest-income working families will have to pay up to seven and half times as much towards their child care costs under universal credit, leaving many unable to continue working. Over the coming years, the 1% uprating of tax credits and maternity pay will leave all recipients worse off in real terms. Many middle-income families have seen tax credits cut completely or their child benefit cut.

The third element of the triple whammy for families is that the crisis is creating disincentives either to work or to work more. Moreover, the introduction of universal credit builds in even greater disincentives, especially for lone parents. A recent report by the Resolution Foundation, “Counting the Costs of Childcare”, found that for lower to middle-income families, the extra income generated by a second earner is almost entirely lost on child care costs, leaving lower or middle-income-earning households no better off in work than out of work. That just cannot be right. With the introduction of universal credit, Barnardo’s has calculated that a lone parent family—with two pre-school children—working 16 hours a week would be zero pounds—yes, zero pounds—better off if they increased their hours to full time. This is a perverse situation that needs looking at urgently. This is a real crisis for many families—who in turn are opting to work fewer hours or not work at all, which in turn is costing our economy and costing the taxpayer—and it is a crisis of this Government’s making.

One of the Government’s flagship policies to address the triple whammy was announced a couple of weeks ago, yet the Minister’s plans to loosen the ratios of childminders to children—to 1:4 for under-twos and 1:6 for over-twos—have been met with anger and derision by parents and providers. What is more, there is little or no evidence that these plans will have any impact on costs at all, yet there is evidence—especially from France, which the Minister is so keen to look to—of quality being compromised. Parents are overwhelmingly against these proposals. A recent survey by Mumsnet found that 94% are happy with the current arrangements. I have been contacted by many anxious parents. If parents are not happy with the quality and care options they have, they are more likely to opt to stay at home and look after the children themselves.

Providers are also united in their opposition to these proposals. Some 94% of respondents to a Pre-school Learning Alliance survey of members said that the quality of care would be compromised if ratios were relaxed in this way. I have been contacted by many working in the sector. Their comments are damning. Neil Leitch from the Pre-school Learning Alliance said:

“We are absolutely appalled by this fixation to alter ratios...This is a recipe for disaster.”

June O’Sullivan, chief executive of the London Early Years Foundation, one of London’s highest rated providers and providers of the excellent and well-used nursery we have here at the House of Commons, said:

“It beggars belief that a minister can wreak havoc on a sector that has explained the negative consequences of her actions....France is now the country with the highest sickness level in Early Years in Europe.”

Kids Academy, which operates in the north-west, contacted me to say:

“We oppose these changes and believe they are fundamentally wrong.”

Even the Minister’s own child care adviser, Professor Helen Penn, has described the plans as “grotesque”.

As reported in The Independent recently, a report commissioned by the Minister’s Department, but which has yet to be published, is believed to conclude that these plans will lead to a “deterioration” in the quality of care and will not reduce the costs to parents. Perhaps the Minister will take this opportunity to tell the House if and when she will publish this important report that she commissioned. The evidence from France is sketchy too, with many believing that quality has been compromised.

As the Minister failed to come to House at the time to debate the proposals, I hope that she will take the opportunity this evening to answer a few questions. Which stakeholders, parents and providers has she found to support these changes? What evidence does she have that the changes will do anything to reduce child care costs? Will she publish the evidence that she has received on quality and costs?

I turn now to the issue of additional financial support, on which the Government have provided a running commentary in the newspapers. Perhaps in recognition of the effect of the Government’s own policies on places and funding as well as their severe cuts to tax credits and family support, they have been briefing for some time now about a new package of financial support. However, on the face of what they are proposing it appears that not everyone will benefit, and how it will be delivered remains a mystery.

We are led to believe that the Government, if they can agree among themselves, are to offer a tax break of up to £2,000 a year per child to each household. This would be paid for by scrapping the child care voucher scheme and only

“a bit of extra money”.

By my reckoning, many families who currently benefit from the voucher scheme, especially dual-earning couples who currently get nearly £3,000 a year of tax breaks each, would be worse off under this proposal. Can the Minister today guarantee that no family in receipt of child care vouchers would be worse off under her new proposals?

Will the Minister explain how the tax-break scheme will work? Many people in the sector, and leading experts, think that there are only three different options for how it can work—through the employer, which places an extra burden on them; via self-assessment; or through providers, who would need to claim it back and then supposedly pass it on to parents. So which of these unappealing options does she favour? Will she say more about when these long-awaited proposals will be brought forward?

I am conscious that it is getting very late, but I would finally like to set out what I would like to see as the scope and framework for future child care policy, as I believe the scale of the crisis we face—and its impact on the economy—requires more radical thinking. The Government’s proposals are just tweaking at the edges. Before we even get into this debate, it would be useful if the Minister clarified what the current Government spend is on child care and child care support. I have heard her use different figures, ranging from £5 billion a year to £7 billion. Which is it? How is she calculating it? The OECD figures that she is fond of quoting, indicating we spend more than most, do not compare like with like, as children start school younger here than in many other European countries, a cost that is included.

Starting with what we currently spend on child care, we then need to look at how much the economy would benefit from more women returning to work immediately following maternity leave. All the evidence shows us that women—I am afraid it is still women—who take a break from work and their careers suffer a pay gap for the rest of their lives, very rarely returning to the level, hours and pay they were on previously. In many cases, they work part time on low pay for years after having children and do not return to their previous job.

So, we not only need to eradicate the disincentives to work, as outlined earlier, but we need to make the case to the Treasury of the long-term added value to the Exchequer of the tax revenue from women returning to their existing jobs. The recent Institute for Public Policy Research report “Making the case for universal childcare” argues that point extremely well. It argues that over a four-year period, there would be net return to the Exchequer of over £20,000 per parent from a returning mother, even when 25 hours a week of free child care is provided over that same four-year period.

Once this case is made, I believe we should look at investing up front the extra tax generated from parents earning more and working more, through more radical child care support. In my view, that should be focused on the points at which parents make decisions about how and when to return to work, especially when their maternity leave comes to end or when they have had their second child. These are critical moments of choice, but too often child care policy is centred on older children; by then, the parent might either have chosen to return to work or already have managed to struggle along with the extra support—however welcome it is when it comes. We need a parent-centred child care policy.

Critical to this parent-centred approach is parental leave and flexible working. I welcome the Government’s bringing forward proposals for parental leave to be shared between both parents—as Labour would have done. This is an important component to changing the nature and culture of workplace attitudes to having children, and I believe it will enable more parents to stay in the work force.

I know I have raised a number of big issues in this evening’s debate, and that we can only scratch the surface in half an hour. I hope, however, that this will help to develop some of the issues on the table.