Finance Bill

Debate between Pat McFadden and Ed Davey

Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons & Report: 1st sitting & Report: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 1st July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr McFadden]

It is a pleasure to be facing my old sparring partner from the Treasury Committee of some years ago across the Dispatch Box. In this debate we will cover a number of amendments dealing with IR35 or off-payroll working, through to the loan charge and the impact of this Finance Bill on the crucial issue of jobs.

On IR35, we have always said that we need an approach that brings together the consideration of tax and employment law and that levels up protections for the self-employed, as well as dealing with the current implications of the tax system, which sometimes boosts bogus self-employment. The Chancellor has already hinted at changes to the tax regime for self-employed people as a consequence of the help given to them through the current crisis. Some contractors have raised concerns about being treated like an employee for tax purposes but not for employment rights purposes. Given the huge ongoing labour market difficulties caused by the current crisis, I would like to ask the Minister what consideration the Government have given to the timetable for their proposed changes and, in particular, what their attitude is to the amendments before us tonight calling for a delay in the roll-out of the IR35 changes to the private sector, so that we can get the balance between tax and employment rights correct.

Many Members have also received representations about changes to the loan charge. We have supported attempts to deal with tax avoidance, but also expressed concern for those advised into such arrangements, by either employers or the promoters of such schemes. We will continue to press the Government to review how the promoters of disguised remuneration schemes have been tackled—or not tackled, as the case may be—by HMRC and ensure that those who promote such schemes are held to account.

[Sir Edward Davey]

I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has been saying. Would he support the option of the House having a vote tonight on new clause 31, which relates to the loan charge? There are many people watching our deliberations who hope that this House will express a view on the loan charge, and I am told that at the moment that is not likely to happen. Will he confirm from the Front Bench that the Labour party would like a Division on new clause 31?

[Mr McFadden]

The matter of what is voted on is of course, a consideration for the Speaker. I do not always get to decide what is voted on in this House.

New clause 26, standing in my name and those of my hon. Friends, focuses on the issue of jobs and does so for the very good reason that that is the principal economic challenge facing us right now. If there was any doubt about that, we need only look at the news over the past 24 hours—1,700 jobs lost at Airbus, up to 5,000 job losses announced by the owners of Upper Crust, 4,500 at easyJet a couple of days ago, another 4,500 at Swissport, and many more around the country that do not make the front page of the national news. These are not just numbers. Every one of them is a human story of a livelihood taken away and a family wondering how they will pay the bills and what the future will hold for them.

Across the country, the claimant count measure of unemployment is up by 1.5 million since the start of the year. In addition to those out of work and the estimated 9 million on furlough schemes, it is estimated that up to 8 million employees are working fewer hours than usual. These stark figures show us that we are facing the jobs challenge of a generation. It is decades since young people leaving school, college or university graduated into a labour market such as this.

Giving my age away, I remember, as a young teenager growing up in Glasgow, attending the people’s march for jobs. Unemployment back then was around 3 million. The vocabulary of it infused the times—“signing on”; “the Girocheque”. It even gave birth to the great band UB40, named after the unemployment card that people got for signing on. The damage caused by that mass unemployment affected not just the city where I grew up, but the Black Country that I now represent, and many similar communities across the country. Long-term social and economic pain was caused by far too many people facing a life on the dole, and we must never go back to those days. If we have learned anything from that experience of the 1980s, it is that the cost of not acting is greater than the cost of acting, and we must do everything we can now to prevent mass unemployment. That is the challenge facing us.

At the start of this crisis we called for wage support to help people through. The furlough scheme and the self-employed furlough scheme were the right and necessary things to do, but as lockdown is eased, and support from those schemes starts to be withdrawn from next month, we can see the danger facing the economy. The danger is that businesses that have been just about hanging on start to let people go, caught between having no income and facing rising employment costs. This is the moment that the Government need to act to preserve jobs, jobs, jobs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr McFadden]

There is no MP from the west midlands who does not care about our manufacturing base. It is a vital part of our economy. It may be true that we make less than we used to, but it is also true that we make more than we think, and we should never be dismissive of the activity and the creativity of making things in this country.

The Government announced their back-to-work plan yesterday, praying in aid President Roosevelt and the new deal. First, the Prime Minister wanted to compare himself to Churchill. Now it is Roosevelt. We have to wonder why he seems so uncomfortable with just being himself. Let us look at the comparison. F. D. R.’s new deal did indeed rescue the United States from the great depression. Millions of workers were hired, 255,000 miles of roads were built, as were 40,000 schools and almost 1,000 airports—major infrastructure projects that modernised the United States and stood the test of time, all at a cost of around 40% of pre-depression United States GDP. By contrast, what the Prime Minister announced yesterday was around 1% of the cost of the new deal—one cent on the dollar, if you will. He has taken the old political maxim, “Under-promise and over-deliver”, and turned it on its head.

I know that the Minister likes a good book. One of the shorter, but nevertheless hugely illuminating, studies of Roosevelt’s approach comes in Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book on leadership. In it, she sets out Roosevelt’s watchwords behind the new deal. I will leave the House to make its own judgment on the comparison between this and the Prime Minister. First, “Strike the right balance of realism and optimism”—not everything has to be claimed to be the biggest or the best in the world. After the events of recent months, systems that just worked would be an improvement. We then have, “Infuse a sense of shared purpose and direction”, “Lead by example”, “Forge a team aligned with action and change”, “Bring all stakeholders aboard”, “Set a deadline and drive full-bore to meet it”, “Address systemic problems. Launch lasting reforms”, “Be open to experiment”, “Adapt and be ready to change course where necessary”, and “Tell the story directly to the people”. That was Roosevelt’s approach, and I will leave it to others to judge whether the Prime Minister’s approach falls short not only in scale but also in spirit.

[Sir Edward Davey]

Like the right hon. Gentleman, I have read books about F. D. R. I have studied F. D. R. The Prime Minister is no F. D. R.

[Mr McFadden]

Quite.

Infrastructure expenditure is, of course, welcome, and we support it. It makes sense to do this when interest rates are historically low.

Community Policing

Debate between Pat McFadden and Ed Davey

Tuesday 7th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) on arranging the debate. I want to make a couple of points because the debate is timely, given the approach of the autumn Budget in a couple of weeks’ time.

In the west midlands, our police force has lost £145 million in real terms from its budget since 2010. That has resulted in a loss of 2,000 police officers and a further loss of a considerable number of civilian non-uniformed policing staff. Crime in the region is up 14% in the latest figures, and some crimes are up by more than that. Burglary is up 31% and car crime by a similar amount, all at a time when the country is having to cope with a significant terrorism threat, which requires significant police resources.

The effect of all that is obvious, deep and profound. If people do not feel safe in their community, on their streets or in their homes, they are not free to go about their lives. Fear of crime destroys liberty. Nor does it apply equally: lower-income communities and people on lower incomes suffer the most, because they do not have the options available to some wealthier citizens. They cannot live in a gated community. They do not have the option sometimes of moving to a more expensive property, perhaps in an area with lower crime levels. Crime is therefore an issue not just of safety but of liberty and of equality, too. That is why we should be deeply concerned at the juxtaposition of falling police numbers and rising crime, which is what the country now faces.

[Sir Edward Davey]

I want to stress my support for what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. It is an argument that is not heard enough that policing and police resourcing is an issue about social justice and freedom. We have to make that argument, because whether it is the newspapers, the House or the establishment, there is not an understanding of the significance of extra police in our communities for the poorest and most vulnerable in our communities.

[Mr McFadden]

I wholeheartedly agree with the right hon. Gentleman. As I said, this is an issue of liberty and it is an issue of equality, too. I want to make an obvious political point. Let us imagine the roles were reversed here and we had a Labour Government presiding over a huge cut in police numbers and a significant rise in crime. Do we honestly think that Conservative Members would be saying, “It’s got nothing to do with police numbers”? I do not think so. I know that opposition can do strange things to a political party and the conclusions it sometimes reaches, but so too can government make Government Members—particularly Back-Bench Members—end up defending the indefensible.

It is simply indefensible to continue with police cuts after what we have had in the past seven years, in the light of both the terrorism threat and now the recorded crime figures showing the rises that I have set out in the west midlands. I want to use today to make my appeal to the Minister to consult with the Chancellor, to say, “Enough is enough.” Cuts in policing have gone too far. They are affecting people’s liberties, and it is an issue of equality, too. We want to see fair funding for police forces right around the country so that we can give the community both the visible presence and the real protection against crime that they deserve.

UK Nuclear Energy Programme

Debate between Pat McFadden and Ed Davey

Monday 21st October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

My right hon. Friend makes some pertinent and relevant points. I am not aware of the noble Lord Ridley’s proposal, but I am aware that Rolls-Royce has been doing a lot of research and development into small modular nuclear plants, and clearly that is extremely interesting. It shows that there are British nuclear firms with skills and expertise, and they are welcoming our proposals today.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

On the issue of the supply chain and its capacity to do the maximum amount of work under today’s announcement, does the Secretary of State regret undermining the UK nuclear supply chain by withdrawing the loan to Sheffield Forgemasters? That limited this country’s capacity to do nuclear work domestically and for export. In the light of today’s announcement, does that not look like a stupid, short-sighted decision?

[Mr Davey]

The right hon. Gentleman is out of date. The Government have been giving support to Sheffield Forgemasters.

Gas Market Fraud

Debate between Pat McFadden and Ed Davey

Tuesday 13th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is completely wrong to jump to conclusions until the regulators—in this case, the FSA and Ofgem—have had a chance to do their work. I really cannot see that a massive reorganisation would help at the moment. We need to ensure that the regulators have the powers that they need to do their job, and we will ensure that that happens.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

I first raised the potential for benchmark price fixing with the FSA some weeks ago when it appeared before the parliamentary banking inquiry. Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be appalling if, despite being able to fix the LIBOR issue because the FSA has the necessary powers, we lacked the powers to prevent price fixing in areas such as the energy and food markets? I would like to ask him to do two things. First, will he ensure that any gaps in the regulatory powers are filled, if necessary through amendments to the energy Bill? Secondly, will he ensure the maximum level of international co-operation on benchmark prices, which are often set globally?

[Mr Davey]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution. He is right to say that, if we find that the regulator needs more powers, we will act. I have made that absolutely clear. He is also right to mention the issues arising from the Wheatley review and the LIBOR issue. We need to ensure that the price reference agencies, the benchmarks and the indices that are used extensively in a variety of financial and commodity markets are properly considered in the reviews. Martin Wheatley has made a number of recommendations, the European Commission has produced a consultation paper on these matters and the International Organisation of Securities Commissions is looking into them, so there is international work being done. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that we must ensure that our domestic regulation and international regulation are able to tackle these issues.

Building a High-Skilled Economy

Debate between Pat McFadden and Ed Davey

Thursday 17th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

Of course that is true of many modern economies, but I think it ill behoves the Labour party to criticise this Government in their early days, given that its own approach to manufacturing industry was not to turn the tide and go against the trend.

Although we have a huge amount in common, when Labour Members talk about the skills agenda they sometimes forget some of the record of which they should be less proud. I am thinking particularly of the quangocracy that grew up around the skills agenda. There is currently a patchwork quilt of quangos involved in that agenda. Members may be interested to learn how the position has changed. In government, the Labour party did not just create the existing quangos, but created quangos, abolished them and created new ones, all within 13 years. The fact that that instability and reinvention happened time after time shows that the Labour Government never really had a true vision. They constantly spent large amounts on new quangos while failing to get some of that money to the grass roots—to our communities. A lot of money was wasted then.

When the last Government set up the Learning and Skills Council, I was sent strategy after strategy by that august body. At first I thought that I had a real duty to read every single page, but when I visited the LSC and talked to its representatives, I realised that most of those strategies would never come to anything. I am afraid that that happened time and again. Huge amounts were spent on quangos, reports and consultancy, but less money went to the companies and learners who needed it. We believe that the need to rationalise the quangocracy in learning and skills is a key issue, and we will deal with it. We will do so while also having to look at the spending issues in this area, and there will be huge challenges. I do not think there is anyone in this House or involved in FE, HE or the education system in general who does not realise that we face difficult choices in this area, but we are absolutely clear that we will do our best with the money that we have got into apprenticeships and into the capital programme for FE to ensure that the priorities get the funding they deserve.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

As the hon. Gentleman has mentioned apprenticeships again, can he tell the House whether, in the 12 months he is talking about, if we take together what he and his colleagues are proposing on Train to Gain and apprenticeships, more learners will be funded by the Government or fewer?

[Mr Davey]

That is interesting. We have to compare that with what the previous Government were planning. When we looked at the funding issues facing us, and the very difficult choices, we saw that the previous Government were planning £340 million of cuts in adult further education and skills this year. That is actually happening this year, and I hope the colleges and students—and the employers—who are having to deal with the financial situation imposed by the cuts realise that the people who are to blame for that are sitting on the Opposition Benches.