British Bioethanol Industry

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

Wednesday 16th January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) on securing the debate, and it is lovely to be in the Chamber to see three Labour Teesside MPs, as well as other Labour colleagues, leading the charge for farmers and of course jobs.

We have already heard that the bioethanol industry is worth about £1.5 billion to the UK economy annually and supports 6,000 jobs, including apprentices and graduate programmes. However, the industry has been hit by job losses. I will highlight briefly that measures can be taken—the Minister has already heard what they are—to protect jobs and to help growth in the industry, creating future jobs and helping my constituency.

I am sure fellow Members are aware of the thousands of jobs that have been lost around the country by the recent closure of Vivergo and the cuts at Ensus. Northern towns have been hit hardest by the closures, including my area. However, bioethanol is used in making E10 petrol, and legislating for the mandatory introduction of E10 would create jobs. It would also put stability into some of our communities where energy companies are based and be hugely beneficial for the environment. Indeed, many of my constituents have contacted me. Bioethanol is the last thing I expected my constituents to contact me about, but many of them did and they asked me to speak on their behalf today.

[Nic Dakin]

It was a nice change.

[Alex Cunningham]

It was indeed—better than Brexit.

As we have already heard, legislating for E10 would bring us into line with other European countries, including Germany, France, Belgium and the Netherlands, and other countries much further afield such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Others have talked about the advantages of E10, which are numerous and clear and have been outlined very well by my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe. I will reiterate some of the things he said.

Transport is the biggest offender when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, contributing 28% of the UK’s total, but that figure can easily be reduced. With regards to emissions, in 2013, the use of biofuels was equivalent to taking hundreds of thousands of cars—some say as many as 1.35 million—off the road, and it is predicted that many more could come off the road as well.

E10 produces fewer carcinogens, lower particulate matter and fewer nitrogen oxides, and helps to improve air quality. The public health benefits are massive. All those things have a direct impact on my constituency, where there are seven farms. When people think of my constituency, they see industry and pipes and things, but it is quite rural and seven of my farms—I do not own them personally—sold their wheat to the Vivergo plant, which produced bioethanol, but has closed. The farmers were paid a £10 a tonne premium compared with what they would have got on the export market, so many of my constituents are losing money from the industry’s decline. They have to find new markets abroad, which are generally less stable for them because of currency fluctuations—we have had plenty of them of late—demand, and even Brexit.

The Navigator Seal Sands storage facility, where Ensus stores and redelivers its ethanol, is also in Stockton North, as are Intertek Cargo and analytical assessment branches that provide services to Ensus. In the neighbouring constituency of Middlesbrough, Stockton North employees are employed by a logistics organisation, AV Dawson, which provides supply chain services for the industry. So the people I represent have quite a stake in any decision by the Government to move to E10 and allow that industry to be redeveloped, with a tremendously positive impact on jobs and farmers’ income.

Mandating the use of E10, as we have already been told, would help us fulfil our commitment to the Climate Change Act 2008, in which the UK led the way in a legally binding 2050 target to reduce emissions by at least 80%. Furthermore, the EU renewable energy directive set a target for the UK to produce 15% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020.

The Government launched a consultation on E10 last summer and evidence was submitted on whether and how to best introduce E10 petrol. However, the consultation ended four months ago and still the Government have not stated whether they will support it. The perception is that the Government have been dragging their feet on this issue. For me, implementation of E10 is a no-brainer, as it is for others. Support for fuel with a higher bioethanol content is widespread, from farmers and car manufacturers to environmental campaigners and motorists. It is a puzzle to me why the Government have not made it mandatory at UK pumps before now.

The National Farmers Union also supports the call for E10 as it provides vital opportunities for thousands of farmers, including the seven in my constituency. Without the bioethanol industry, farmers who sell crops for bioethanol production would be forced to export their crops and they would lose, as I said earlier, £10 a tonne if they did that. There are plenty of reasons for the Government to stop dragging their feet and make a positive decision to benefit people in my constituency and further afield, and hundreds of jobs could be created in my constituency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. I too congratulate the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) on bringing forward the debate, as well as on his work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on British bioethanol. He has campaigned on the issue for a long time, and I commend him for that work.

The debate is clearly important for many hon. Members, given today’s turnout and considering everything else that is going on. There is a big debate on the motion of no confidence in the UK Government, yet six Members have intervened and there have been five Back-Bench speeches. That is testament to the importance of the subject and the Minister needs to take heed of that. I note that the six Members who intervened have not hung around to hear the Front-Bench speeches—perhaps I am not a draw in this debate—but they got their points on the record.

The hon. Member for Scunthorpe highlighted the critical state of the industry—the partial collapse that has already happened, the job losses to date, and the fact that it is four years since the Government seemed to be going down the route of making E10 mandatory. Obviously, real frustrations come with that situation. He made an excellent opening speech and raised the key issues. In discussing concerns about the effect on cars, he highlighted the fact that only 5% of cars now on the road are likely to have issues with E10, and confirmed that E5 would not have to be phased out but could remain as a fuel for classic cars. I like the suggestion that tax measures could be used to offset costs for people who might be affected. Considering how we treat classic cars for tax purposes at present, that seems a reasonable suggestion.

As always, we heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). All the other Members who spoke concentrated on direct jobs, but he focused on farming and the benefits to be gained for all. I do not think anyone could argue with that philosophy. The hon. Members for Stockton South (Dr Williams), for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and for Redcar (Anna Turley)—it is not the first time I have seen the Teesside Collective in action—rightly spoke about jobs in their constituencies, how important the financial hit taken by those constituencies is, and what it means for the wider UK economy. The hon. Member for Redcar mentioned that the area has suffered other job losses, and that it cannot afford to continue to suffer such losses. That is something else that the Minister needs to consider.

[Alex Cunningham]

The way we understand the Teesside Collective—besides as my colleagues and myself—is as the organisation that has led the way on carbon capture and storage on Teesside. Of course we are hopeful that there will be an amazing plant there. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in commending the collective for the work it has done to secure the plant for Teesside?

[Alan Brown]

I am more than happy to commend it for that. It is important work on an important environmental issue. When we think about it, that is what we are considering—environmental improvements with E10. Carbon capture and storage would certainly do likewise, and I hope that the work will reach its conclusion.

I am a member of the all-party British bioethanol group and have signed the pledge on E10. I urge any hon. Members who have not yet signed it to do so, and to show cross-party support. The hon. Member for Scunthorpe, talking about the future of the bioethanol industry, highlighted the critical stage that things have reached. We have heard about the job losses to date. Government action is required. It could be argued that there is an issue of vested business interests when the bioethanol industry campaigns for mandatory E10. However, as other hon. Members have pointed out, there are clear merits in the E10 proposals, so it makes no sense that the UK Government have been dragging their heels. I hope that the Minister will tell us today why they have done that so far, and what they will do to move things forward positively. She has listened to the speeches, but have she or the Government estimated how many jobs are at stake? How many could be created if Ensus were to get back up and running, and what would the long-term future be with respect to developing mandatory E10?

Transport accounts for approximately a quarter of energy demand, but it lags behind other energy sectors in carbon reduction measures. The bioethanol industry estimates that the introduction of E10 would deliver something equivalent to taking 700,000 cars off the roads, although, interestingly, the hon. Member for Stockton North gave an upper estimate of 1.35 million cars. Have the UK Government done any analysis of what introducing E10 would equate to, in relation to carbon reduction measures?

The hon. Member for Stockton North highlighted the fact that bioethanol blended with petrol reduces carcinogens and particulate matter and can reduce nitrogen oxide emissions, and commented on what that means for air quality. As a doctor, the hon. Member for Stockton South highlighted the medical issues associated with air quality, and we now know that 40,000 premature deaths a year arise from air quality issues. The UK Government have lost in the High Court three times in proceedings about their air quality plan, so what consideration have they given to the air quality benefits and the long-term impact on health of the mandatory introduction of E10?

Has the Minister considered the benefits of E10 that other countries have assessed? It accounts for 95% of petrol sales in the US and is the biggest selling petrol fuel in France, Belgium, Australia and Canada, among others, so it is commonplace in all the other developed countries. Why is the UK lagging behind? Cars are now designed to run on E10, so new cars running on E5 are running inefficiently. Why would we want that? It means greater fuel use and greater emissions. Let us get E10 and make today’s cars more efficient.

The Government may see electric vehicles as a decarbonisation silver bullet but, given that average sales of those vehicles still hover around the 1% bracket, we are a long way from the critical mass of electrical vehicle use that would make a huge difference to carbon reduction. If the Government will not invest enough to get electric vehicle uptake to that critical mass, they need to consider such transitional decarbonisation measures as mandatory E10 and liquefied petroleum gas.

One welcome UK Government measure is the staged increase in the renewable transport fuel obligation from 4.75% to 8.5%, from this month. It is therefore counterintuitive for them not to introduce E10 as a mandatory measure. I would like the Minister to comment on what seems to be disjointed thinking, and what the Department for Transport will do to rectify it.

Hon. Members have talked about the importance of E10 for jobs, air quality and the environment. Why would we want to rely on imports of biofuels in the future, when we could have a fantastic industry in the UK? I make the same plea that everyone else has made, to bring forward E10 as a mandatory measure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Ghani]

That is an interesting way of responding to how the business environment is dealing with global issues beyond what the Government may or may not have intended to do, so I do not accept that point.

It is clear that UK producers of bioethanol from wheat have faced challenging market conditions, due in part to high wheat prices following a hot summer, and a low bioethanol price—that may in some way answer the hon. Gentleman’s question. However, it is by no means clear that an E10 mandate would address all the challenges that the UK bioethanol industry has faced. It is also clear that the introduction of E10 is not without barriers, including the need to take into account the concerns of a significant number of owners of vehicles that are not compatible with E10—that point was raised earlier in the debate. To be successful, it is vital that any introduction of E10 is backed by fuel suppliers and consumers alike.

Since its inception, the policy on biofuels in the UK has been complex and not without controversy. Immediately after the renewable transport fuel obligation scheme—RTFO—was set in law in 2007, the Gallagher review into the indirect effects of biofuel production was published. It became clear that to maintain faith in the emissions reductions achieved and to retain consumer buy-in, we would have to address the negative indirect effects of certain biofuels. To reward fuels that may perform worse than the fossil fuels they replace would have undermined the rationale of a scheme designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

It was with those challenges in mind that the Department jointly established a transport energy taskforce with the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership, to consider how biofuels can contribute to meeting our climate change commitments in the context of measures introduced to address the negative indirect impacts of some biofuels.

[Alex Cunningham]

The Minister said a few minutes ago that some cars might not be compatible with E10 or even E5. Of course that is the case, but there are always alternatives at the petrol stations pump: diesel, fuel with bioethanol included or ordinary unleaded petrol. I cannot see that as the barrier that she described.

[Ms Ghani]

I do not think I described it as a barrier but a challenge. We must understand needs and impacts on consumers, which is why we should not rush, but ensure that what we do has a positive impact on all people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Ghani]

The hon. Gentleman is trying to tease out a statement from me, when he knows that he has to wait for the consultation to get the response that he wants. I thank him for his tricky intervention, but he will have to wait for the consultation response to get the answer.

The Government agree that the aim must be to reduce emissions and that low carbon fuels must play a part. The regulations made last year introduced a greenhouse gas reduction obligation on suppliers and incentives for the development of fuels capable of delivering higher greenhouse gas emissions reductions. These allow us to reward low carbon fuels because of the emissions reductions they deliver. We have also made £20 million of match capital funding available under the future fuels for freight and flight competition. In the wider context, the Government have recently published two major strategies focused on combating climate change and improving the UK’s air quality. Our Road to Zero strategy sets out a clear pathway to zero emissions vehicles by 2050, and this week we have published our clean air strategy. The pathway is not just about driver behaviour and electrification. Low-carbon fuels will continue to play a vital role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the vehicle fleet.

The renewable transport fuel obligation, as amended last year, is expected to save nearly 85 million tonnes of CO₂ over the 15-year period from 2018, which represents around a third of transport’s projected contribution to UK carbon budget savings during the 2020s. In achieving those savings there is an opportunity to increase the amount of bioethanol in petrol, from 5% today up to 10%.

[Alex Cunningham]

The Under-Secretary is doing a grand job stonewalling on behalf of the Minister of State. If there is one message that we would ask to be taken back, it is that we desperately need a date and we need that certainty. Will she commit to go to the Minister and say, “Look, these guys are going to bash your door down if you do not actually make a decision and make it soon”?

[Ms Ghani]

I believe that the door has already been bashed down, because a meeting is set in the diary.

HBOS Reading: Independent Review

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2018 Westminster Hall

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I do agree. The sector is so far away from the banking sector that we need that fundamental reform is needed not only in the regulatory process, but in the mechanisms that enable victims to hold the banks to account, which I will come on to soon.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. One of my constituents, Michael Field, has been a victim of the banks as well. He borrowed from Lloyds to finance the building of several houses. He maintained his payments and fulfilled the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, yet Lloyds seized his assets and foreclosed on him. He then discovered that his assets had been sold on to another organisation within the bank. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government need to have parallel and very specific inquiries about the operation of Lloyds in relation to these and similar matters?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman makes his case very well. The difficulty goes back to my point about justice being seen to be done. There is no mechanism currently. I cannot judge the guilt or innocence in the business relationship between his constituent and his bank. The key is to allow mechanisms for these people to take their complaints forward, without having to be subject to the one-sided, partial process that they are subject to today. That is what the Griggs review is.

I will now make a little progress, if I may.

[Alex Cunningham]

rose—

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will give way briefly.

[Alex Cunningham]

I just want to make the point that my constituent fulfilled all the terms and conditions and maintained his payments, yet he has no recourse. I take the point about being able to make a complaint, but what happened should never have been allowed to happen.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I agree, and there are many cases like that. I will talk about the redress processes shortly.

There are three elements to what we are discussing: the fraud itself, the potential cover-up of the fraud, and the review that supposedly provides justice for the victims of the fraud. There were finally convictions for the fraud in January 2017. Six people, including three former HBOS employees, were convicted of defrauding business customers over 10 years earlier. More than £250 million in total was defrauded, and the people who were guilty of the crimes got 47 years in jail.

Many people lost millions of pounds—in some cases, it was tens of millions—yet these issues did not come to light because of the regulators. They came to light because of individuals who were so persistent and determined; I am thinking particularly of Paul and Nikki Turner, journalists such as Ian Fraser, and Sally Masterton, who worked for Lloyds. Had it not been for them, the issues would never have come to light. Of course, their efforts have taken a great toll on them and come at great cost to them.

Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Guernsey) Order 2018 Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Isle of Man) Order 2018 Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Jersey) Order 2018

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 13th November 2018 General Committees

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve on this Committee with you in the Chair, Mr McCabe. I am grateful to the Minister for his explanatory comments, but I am afraid that the Opposition cannot support the treaties in their current form.

Let me say at the outset that the Opposition’s concern about the treaties is in no way a reflection of our overall view of the Channel Islands, with whom we are determined to maintain a cordial and respectful relationship, building on our important historical and contemporary ties. Nor would the Opposition view the previous double taxation agreements as fit for purpose. They were not, although there appears to have been confusion in that regard on the Government side. I will return to that later.

Our opposition to the treaties is motivated instead by a deep concern about the lack of appropriate engagement by the Government in advancing the cause of tax transparency, which at rhetorical level they are committed to, but which time and again they seem sadly to have resiled from in practical terms. During debates on the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, the Opposition prepared an amendment requiring Crown dependencies to introduce public registers of beneficial ownership, but we were persuaded by Ministers that they were working with Crown dependencies to achieve transparency through other means. The amendment was therefore withdrawn.

What has happened in the intervening six months since the beginning of May? It looks as if even the Government’s responsibility to require overseas territories to introduce public registers of beneficial ownership has floundered. The Government are obliged to do that now by the will of this House, given that the amendment to that intent passed. I understand that there has been one conference call with the overseas territories, and that appears to have been in relation to what the Government are committed by this House to achieving regarding promoting beneficial ownership registers in the overseas territories.

When it comes to the Crown dependencies, the Government appear to be shutting the door on transparency with these treaties, which is unacceptable. From what I can see, the previous tax treaties with the Channel Islands covered only income tax and corporation tax, not information exchange. There was a separate agreement on the latter, signed in 2013 as an exchange of letters, although that does not seem to have been enacted. As an aside, it would be quite interesting to hear from the Minister why that is the case.

Information exchange is now included within the tax treaties, as one might expect given the OECD’s focus on this area and the fact that, as the Minister indicated, the treaties are modelled on the OECD’s multilateral instrument for amending tax treaties. Given that information exchange was a subject for negotiation as part of the treaty process, and given previous assurances, one would have expected our Government to seek to include an increase in transparency for beneficial ownership registers within the negotiations. However, article 26 in the Jersey agreement, replicated in those with Guernsey and the Isle of Man, states:

“Any information received under paragraph 1”,

which contains the provisions on information exchange,

“by a Territory shall be treated as secret”.

That, coupled with the fact that there is no mention elsewhere in the treaty text of public registers of beneficial ownership, appears to close the door on transparency, rather than open it in the manner that the Government committed to doing.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

The pensions industry is probably one of the most secretive as far as costs and transparency are concerned, although the Department for Work and Pensions and the Pensions Minister have done tremendous work to try to increase transparency. There is a lesson there for the Minister.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He makes the serious point that we have seen transparency moving forward in many areas, yet with these treaties we appear to be moving backwards.

The Government may say that they began negotiations on the treaties in April 2016, as reported by the then Minister responsible, Jane Ellison, but the fact remains that they were not signed until 2 July this year—after the Government had given an assurance that they would work with the Crown dependencies towards public registers of beneficial ownership. We often hear the Government say that they cannot force either the overseas territories or Crown dependencies to do anything at all. I resolutely state that we must do all that we can to support our friends in the overseas territories and Crown dependencies.

I have frequently met with politicians from both groups of jurisdictions, and I respect their efforts in the field of promoting clean financial services and in many other areas. Many people in both groups of jurisdictions now recognise that the writing is on the wall when it comes to excessive secrecy in the financial sector. More transparency is coming, and it is only a matter of time before it will become the international standard. The British Government must play their part in that.

The treaties were the perfect opportunity for our Government to seek to work with the Crown dependencies to promote public registers after previous commitments to do so, yet that opportunity seems not to have been taken up. It would have been perfectly possible for our Government not to have concluded the treaties until public registers were agreed to, but they chose to ignore that pressing need. Similarly, the Government failed to use the opportunity of the Building Societies Legislation (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 as a means to require change. Instead, the current relationship between the UK and the Crown dependencies is maintained in those regulations without any conditions attached whatsoever.

That is all in the context of the Government acting to defend the interests of UK-linked territories—or what is portrayed as their interests; I would argue that in the long run they are not—when it comes to the secrecy of financial activities. I have previously used freedom of information requests to try to get to the bottom of the lobbying that our Government have undertaken on behalf of overseas territories and Crown dependencies concerning the EU’s tax haven blacklist. Eventually that hit a brick wall, when those matters were classified as “diplomatic” and therefore not open to FOIs. The Süddeutsche Zeitung newspaper was rather more forthcoming, however, when it reported in March that the UK Government had intervened in the blacklisting process, in that case to try and stop the British Virgin Islands being blacklisted.

The British Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot on the one hand argue that they are powerless in relation to our overseas territories and Crown dependencies, and on the other promote a particular view of those territories’ interests—which, as I have said, I do not think are their long-term interests—to other actors such as the EU. Those positions are just not compatible. It would be helpful to hear the Minister’s view on why these treaties do not conform with previous commitments made by the Government with respect to public registers of beneficial ownership for our Crown dependencies.

The Minister will be aware of the eurobond exemption, which has been estimated to lose the Exchequer around half a billion pounds a year in tax revenue. The Channel Islands stock exchange is a recognised stock exchange under section 841 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. Securities listed on that exchange enjoy exemptions from withholding tax even though they may be held by opaque companies. A UK company, for example, would make interest payments gross, without any withholding tax, while in many cases the recipient would arrange their tax affairs in such a way that they could escape tax altogether. I understand that, back in 2012, HMRC itself suggested that that could be restricted, so that the connected parties could no longer benefit from the exemption. My party also adopted that position at the time. The Government’s argument against it was that issuers, paying agents and clearing systems for eurobonds might not be aware of who noteholders are or whether they are in the same group as the issuer. Essentially, they would be unable to work out if they were connected parties. It would be good to hear from the Minister whether that matter even came up during discussions about these treaties and, if so, what the treaties do to prevent that kind of distortive activity.

It would be helpful to have a clear indication of how the Government view the process for concluding new double tax agreements. I noted when we ratified the OECD’s multilateral instrument that it did not result in a commitment to alter our treaties with Jersey, the Isle of Man or Guernsey. On that occasion the Minister replied to me:

“The hon. Lady asked why we do not include all the DTAs. She is absolutely right that the UK has a large number—from memory, I think it is around 130—and about 121 will be potentially covered by this measure. The answer is that, in some cases, the DTAs largely conform to the changes that would be introduced were they to be subject to the MLI. In some cases, it is not necessary, as our treaty contains substantial provisions. Our first-time DTA with Colombia would be one example.”—[Official Report, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 9 May 2018; c. 8.]

That seems to be out of kilter with what has occurred with these treaties, which did not cover many of the measures covered by the MLI, such as royalties or capital gains tax—the treaties and the MLI have very different formats. Now that we see a different approach from what was initially suggested for the Channel Islands DTAs, I would be interested to learn what will to happen with the remaining DTAs, which cover Austria, the Falkland Islands, the Faroe Islands, Switzerland and the United Arab Emirates. Interestingly, the protocol to the Swiss DTA was concluded in 2017, but is still not in force, and it is not clear when it will be brought to the House. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister about progress in that regard.

To conclude, sadly we do not feel that we can accept these treaties. They appear to go against commitments made to the Opposition that the Government would continue to work extensively with our Crown dependencies towards having public registers of beneficial ownership. For that reason, we will be voting against the orders today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham]

Having anticipated what the Minister said, I should be interested to learn what new areas the Minister is working on to encourage greater transparency within the territories.

[Mel Stride]

One of the principal areas is that of economic substance when it comes to the activities of those businesses that purport to be operating from those low or no-tax jurisdictions, which is the main thrust of the EU’s move here—that we have genuine businesses involved in those jurisdictions, rather than their just being used as a conduit for the purposes of avoiding or paying extremely low levels of tax.

The hon. Member for Oxford East mentioned eurobond exemptions and restricted connected parties. These treaties do not impinge on that matter, which is dealt with in UK domestic tax law, so it is quite distinct from what we are debating today. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North asked if we could come back with a report on information sharing and how effective it had been. I do not think that, in this instance, there is a need for a specific report. The tools for scrutinising that, whether by way of debates or parliamentary questions, are here in this Parliament. On that note, I shall conclude my remarks.

Question put.

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [Lords]

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 24th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

I will speak to amendment 41, which is in my name. My amendment is intended to make a point to the Minister, and I am utterly certain that I will get the assurance that I need in order to do nothing more than discuss it now.

I welcome the introduction of a single financial guidance body, as it should result in a simpler, smarter and smoother experience for the user, helping them to make informed financial decisions. However, we ought to use the opportunity of this Bill not only to ensure that we get the guidance bodies all in one place; we also need to recognise the different types of finance or retirement income that need to be signposted. Financial decision making can be complex, often requiring advice and support, particularly during events such as buying a first home, on retirement or following a bereavement.

I tabled this amendment because people ought to consider their finances in the round. In other words, all liquid and illiquid assets—cash and property—should be considered together. My amendment follows the lead of the noble Lady Greengross in the other place, asking the Government to ensure that this new guidance body highlights the full range of options available, so that its users get the best possible advice to help them to make informed choices about their finances and their futures.

The report published last month by the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee describes equity release as one of the key tools available to those predominantly in later life. It ensures that older householders are able to pay for care costs or home improvements to give them the option to stay in the homes in which they have built lives and brought up their families. Equity release means that our constituents aged 55 and over who might be asset rich but cash poor can have the option of staying in their own homes by accessing the wealth that they have accrued in that home.

The Equity Release Council published a research paper last April called “Equity Release Rebooted”, in which it estimated that the average value of a defined contribution pension in 2012 to 2014 was £30,200, while over-55s in England possess approximately £1.8 trillion in housing wealth and more than 80% of over-65s own a home. For many, if not most people coming towards the position of making a decision about their retirement, their property is much their greatest asset. It must therefore be sensible for equity release to be signposted and to form at least part of any discussion about funding retirement and later life.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Does he not think, therefore, that there is considerable merit in new clause 2, which promotes the idea of specific guidance for people in mid-life so that they get proper and clear advice on some of the decisions that they may have to make?

[Crispin Blunt]

I am sure that there is enormous merit in new clause 2, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman has the opportunity to make the case further. There is obviously a common theme of making sure that people have the information about all their assets to enable them to make the best possible decision. We must make sure, in setting up the body in this Bill, that we do not have to come back to this later on because, in practice, we are not delivering the best advice to people about all the assets with which they have to plan.

The pensions advice allowance allows people to withdraw £500, tax-free, from their pension pots to pay for financial advice on their retirement, including on housing wealth, but some people will be unwilling or unable to use this facility. It is incumbent on the single financial guidance body to provide free, impartial guidance and to ensure that this encompasses housing wealth. It is likely that any signposting requirement would push consumers towards the Equity Release Council, the industry body for the equity release sector. Members of the Equity Release Council are committed to product standards and consumer safeguards.

--- Later in debate ---

At the heart of any marketing prohibition lies the well-founded fear of scams. The amount likely to be saved by UK pension savers, each with their own personal defined-contribution pot, massively expanded by the successful roll-out of auto-enrolment, will in time be truly vast. There are currently 9.3 million people enrolled in workplace pensions. Where pension saving was once a rarity, particularly for the low-paid and the under-30s, it is thankfully now becoming the norm. A rough and ready calculation shows that in time the number of people enrolled in workplace pensions could well rise from 9.3 million to 15 million; I am sure that will be the appropriate figure in time. When we consider that from 5 April 2019, the combined employee and employer contributions will be 8%, we see that if that stays steady, using average salaries, and with a working lifetime of, say, 35 years, that will mean a pension pot in this country of over £1 trillion, and that is without investment growth. Of course, investment growth could be dented by the Labour party’s plans for a Robin Hood tax on financial transactions, but that is a debate for another day.

[Alex Cunningham]

The hon. Gentleman talks about a total pot in the trillions, but for the vast majority of people, particularly part-time workers, their pot, although better than nothing, will be relatively small. Does he agree that several groups are still excluded from auto-enrolment, and that the Government need to do something to bring them in?

[Craig Mackinlay]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. There is a wide debate—I have taken part in it—about whether the self-employed are playing a full role in getting pension provision. I think that there are measures that could be taken, perhaps using the national insurance system, to provide them with greater certainty. The primary purpose of the Bill is to ensure greater financial understanding among the general population. They need to know where to turn at the right time. I have confidence that the single financial guidance body will achieve just that.

I close with a suggestion that is probably best directed to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. It has some relevance to the honest proposals put forward by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) on mid-life reviews. Employees, as they work through their working lives, obviously have an employer. Employers are very well aware—possibly more than anybody else—of when an employee is approaching retirement. I am sure that most responsible employers will be keen to help. I recommend that the Secretary of State discuss amendments to the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 to allow employers to pay for advice, outside of any benefit-in-kind tax charge, so that advice can be provided to employees and paid for tax-free. That would extend a benefit-in-kind exemption similar to what we see when advice relating to settlement agreements, or payment for CV writing and recruitment advice upon redundancy, is duly paid for by an employer tax-free.

In my view, the Bill is fit for purpose and I very much support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Sobel]

I am here to support the amendments in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), which are complementary. I have also put my name to amendments 1, 2 and 31 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West.

Why do the poorest in our society have to pay more for the same services as the wealthiest? Why do they have to pay more for the same gas and electricity? Why do they have to pay more interest for the same loans? Why is credit more difficult to access and at much higher interest for the poorest in society? The structure of our society is such that growing inequality is in-built, because those with capital can further accrue it through cheap finance and lower costs, while those without capital cannot pursue their dreams through the high costs and limited availability of debt finance. Today we have an opportunity to make a small step in reversing that trend, casting light on the practices of high-cost credit providers and enshrining the duty to ensure that information about credit unions is provided by the single financial guidance body. The very mission of credit unions is to provide low-cost finance to people who are deemed high risk by traditional institutions, and they are owned by their own members.

Martin Luther King said:

“it is obvious that if a man is to redeem his spiritual and moral ‘lag,’ he must go all out to bridge the social and economic gulf between the ‘haves’ and ‘have not’s’ of the world. Poverty is one of the most urgent items on the agenda of modern life.”

Today we have the opportunity to pass these most excellent amendments and make a step towards bridging that social and economic gulf, not just because it makes sense in terms of financial justice, but on a spiritual and moral level.

The United States acted 40 years ago on the spiritual and moral lag that Dr King talked about, by introducing the Community Reinvestment Act. The Act was established to ensure that banking needs were met and monitored in low-income neighbourhoods, which had seen a retreat of traditional banking services and rising interest—a situation that we have faced in this country for far too long. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West gave an excellent explanation of the Community Reinvestment Act, so I will not repeat it. The banks in America have responded to the Community Reinvestment Act by establishing plans to service those communities and ensure that their services are not restricted. Banks in the US with community investment plans not only commit capital at affordable rates for loans, but invest in community development.

The amendments are needed before we can implement a community reinvestment Act. Without the disclosure of financial data and a statutory duty to promote credit unions, we cannot achieve community reinvestment by the large banks. The amendments are a necessary but insufficient precursor to getting real financial justice for communities that struggle to access affordable credit, but today we can make the first step to ensuring financial justice and legislating for a full community reinvestment Act. I hope that the Treasury Bench takes on board these excellent amendments and responds to them in kind.

[Alex Cunningham]

I want to speak briefly to new clause 2. While I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you have many years to go before you reach your own mid-life point, I am sure you will understand that we could all use a bit of advice at times—even though those of us with six decades or so behind us think it our duty to pass on pearls of wisdom to the younger generation.

There is plenty of talk about young people and their finances—about how they can manage their cash and get on the property ladder, which is of course impossible for many these days. This Bill does something to help young people, and I am pleased about that, but what it fails to do is help those in the mid-life stage—people who may have saved a bit, joined a pension scheme, or bought an ISA or two. More importantly, it does nothing to help those who have done none of those things and simply do not know who or where to turn to when planning their later life.

Although some excellent initiatives have passed through this House, such as Labour’s policy of auto-enrolment into workplace pensions, there have been a number of failures, not least around the issue of ’50s-born women and their state pension age, which was extended by the Tory-Lib Dem coalition by several years, condemning many such people to poverty when they should have been enjoying retirement. We could have hoped that the experience of thousands of women left facing difficulty and uncertainty would act as a salutary lesson to everyone else that they cannot really depend on Governments to deliver the security they need in retirement, but need to find ways to make provision for themselves.

People are now looking at their expected pension provision, if they have any, and then panicking about how they are going to afford to live when they retire, or are faced with the reality that they will have to work beyond retirement age in order to make ends meet. We also have people who have lived their lives just getting by—who have never been able to buy their own home and now do not know how they will afford their rent once they retire. Uncertainty is very much the name of the game in the 21st century, so we have a responsibility in Parliament to make provision to ensure that everyone, whether they can afford it or not, is able to work out how they will live when they are no longer receiving a wage. This new clause to provide targeted information to people from the age of 50 delivers that.

We all know that people can now expect to have several jobs throughout their career, and redundancy, zero-hours contracts and insecure work are clouds hanging over millions of people every day. Some people in their 50s find that they need to retrain for another role, but many do not know where to begin or where to get to the facts. This body, backed by the right promotional campaigns, including multimedia, could be a lifeline for those who ignore their money problems. I am, however, concerned about the capacity of the new body. We need to guarantee that it can expand if we are to reach many more people with guidance. I am yet to be convinced that that capacity will be there. I hope that the Minister will say something about how it can expand. I also hope that he can extend its services to provide the mid-life advice that people need.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

I, too, want to support my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas). I hope that the FCA will look speedily at the total cap on the rent-to-own sector, with its inflated prices for goods and roll-up charges.

I am pleased that the Bill aims to ensure that members of the public can access good-quality, free-to-client impartial financial guidance, pensions advice and debt advice. Clauses 10 and 11, which relate to my amendment 42, require the single financial guidance body to set and enforce standards across the debt advice partners it commissions. I think that everyone agrees that the body will have to have regard to standards of practice for the organisations it commissions, but the respective roles of the single financial guidance body and the FCA should not create uncertainty. There may have to be additional requirements for organisations that it commissions.

However, an independent report to the Debt Advice Steering Group run by the Money Advice Service says that the quality assurance process for the larger debt advice charities should be authorised by the FCA. The concern is that any such new and additional requirements from the single financial guidance body should not replicate the requirements faced by the debt advice organisations from their regulator, the FCA. Having had a contract from the Legal Aid Board where we had three auditors in at one time, I was tempted just to throw the files into the middle of the room and say “Fight over them.” The auditing ought to be in the same capacity, and it should be done under one audit that covers all if there are the same requirements.

The body’s standard-setting powers also need to be matched with principles of good regulation, and conditions ought to be proportionate to the benefits they will bring. Amendment 42 would make that plain. Ensuring that the new body’s standard-setting powers have regard to proportionality would smooth its functioning, guarantee assurance and stop the uncertainty as to whether the FCA or the single financial guidance body has primacy.

Childcare Vouchers

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

Monday 15th January 2018 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 200585 relating to childcare vouchers.

I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey, and to lead this debate as a member of the Petitions Committee. I must also declare an interest as a beneficiary of the childcare vouchers scheme.

The e-petition, entitled “Keep childcare vouchers open beyond April 2018”, was signed by more than 116,000 people, including almost 400 across my own city. It reads:

“Hundreds of thousands of parents will lose out under the new tax-free childcare. The voucher schemes should be kept open alongside tax-free childcare to give parents a genuine choice for the support that best suits their family.”

The creator of the e-petition, Ellie Symonds-Lloyd, is in the gallery with her family. I am particularly pleased to be leading this debate, given the importance of the wider issue to our society and to the economy as a whole. Increasing the availability of affordable childcare, particularly for younger children, is one of the key issues for many of Britain’s families, with a huge impact on their standard of living.

As the Joseph Rowntree Foundation highlighted after the publication of the 2017 childcare survey by the Family and Childcare Trust last March:

“The biggest cost for many working households with children, after housing, is childcare. The cost of all types of childcare has risen much faster than overall inflation. The cost of childcare can affect the real increase in disposable income gained by a parent taking a job or working for more hours. This can affect families’ living standards directly and also indirectly by influencing whether parents work at all, what jobs they take and how much they work.”

The Family and Childcare Trust commented:

“British parents now pay an eye-watering average of £116 per week for a part-time nursery place—or over £6,000 every year, more than double what families spend on food and drink… It is a disgrace that so many parents are effectively shut out of the workplace by crippling childcare costs. Recent Governments have rightfully invested in childcare, but too many parents are still struggling to find and pay for childcare that they and their children need.”

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate this issue. Does my hon. Friend recollect that when we were both on the Childcare Bill Committee, there was much discussion of the costs associated with provision for disabled children? It is therefore all the more important that we place on the record how tremendous the additional pressure is on parents in such circumstances.

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend is right. Some of the changes introduced by the Government have been positive in that regard, but far more still needs to be done to support families with disabled children. He is absolutely right to raise the issue so early in the debate, and I will return to it as we progress.

It is critical, if we are to tackle increasing rates of child poverty and a lack of social mobility, that we address this issue. Increasing the availability of good-quality, affordable childcare clearly enables more parents to get into or return to work or access education and training, while also improving educational outcomes for their children. It is not just an issue for individual families; it is of critical importance to our whole economy and our productivity levels.

That is why the Treasury Committee, of which I am a member, recently announced that we will be holding an inquiry into childcare policy and its influence on the economy. While examining the role that high-quality, accessible, flexible and affordable childcare can play in supporting labour productivity, our inquiry will also scrutinise the processes for delivering childcare schemes and the overall package of Government initiatives aimed at making childcare affordable, as well as how the individual initiatives interact with each other and their effectiveness and whether they have delivered an adequate provision of affordable childcare that facilitates parental employment.

I am delighted that we will be investigating that crucial issue. As the Family and Childcare Trust has commented:

“Childcare is as vital as the rails and roads for helping our country to run”.

I am not quite sure whether the Government have fully made that link, given that childcare received the briefest of mentions in the recently published industrial strategy, and no mention whatsoever in the autumn Budget speech, despite the Chancellor’s stated commitment to tackling the UK’s poor and downgraded productivity levels.

There is a raft of early years and childcare-related concerns that I could touch on, starting with the cuts to Sure Start. Funding for Sure Start services has fallen by a staggering 46% since 2010 across the north-east, which is my region. Parents were promised that 30 hours of free childcare would be in place for their three and four-year-olds by last September, but the Pre-School Learning Alliance recently reported that 18% of families registered for the scheme still cannot access that support. The long-term sustainability of the childcare sector is also at risk due to underfunding—more than 1,100 nurseries and childminders have gone out of business since 2015. However, this debate focuses on childcare vouchers and the new system of tax-free childcare, and whether one must replace the other, or indeed whether the two can coexist.

As hon. Members will be aware, the childcare voucher scheme was introduced in 2005 under the Labour Government, as part of the wider system of employer-supported childcare. Working parents signing up to the childcare voucher scheme agree to sacrifice up to £55 of their salary a week, or £243 a month, before tax and national insurance deductions, receiving in exchange vouchers that must be used to pay for Ofsted-registered childcare providers—nurseries, childminders, pre-schools, after-school clubs or holiday schemes—for children aged up to 15, or up to 16 for children with a disability. That equates to a maximum saving of £77.76 per month per parent for basic rate taxpayers, or £1,866 per year for a working couple who are both in receipt of childcare vouchers.

The Childcare Voucher Providers Association calculates that some 780,000 parents are currently using vouchers, with millions of parents having received support since the scheme was introduced almost 13 years ago. According to a Library briefing paper, the Government state that more than 50,000 employers offer childcare vouchers to their staff, which the CVPA estimates equates to between 20 million and 26 million of the 31 million UK employees working for organisations that offer the scheme. Indeed, one of the benefits of childcare vouchers has been that employers have used their membership of the voucher scheme as an incentive to attract potential staff, which has helped organisations to recognise the importance of childcare and family life for their workforce, often leading them to consider what more they can do to support the working parents they employ. The CVPA highlights that childcare vouchers are the second most popular company benefit; only workplace pensions, which employers must offer by law, are more popular.

However, there are a number of well-documented flaws in the current childcare voucher scheme. A person’s ability to receive that support depends on their employer being registered for the scheme, which means that those whose employers are not registered cannot receive it. That includes the ever-increasing number of self-employed people in our economy, which the membership organisation IPSE, the Association of Independent Professional and the Self Employed, estimates at around 4.8 million people in the UK.

A further concern is that the level of support available per family via childcare vouchers is linked to the number of parents, rather than the number of children. For example, a lone parent with three young children working full-time and facing high childcare costs is entitled to less tax relief than a couple, both claiming vouchers, with one older child who only attends an after-school club twice a week.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast South (Emma Little Pengelly) on her wide-ranging and thorough speech, and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) on her opening speech, which clearly demonstrated that she understands the issues and has tremendous knowledge in this area. I wish the new Minister, who I think is the third Children’s Minister we have had—I suspect he is the Children’s Minister.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)]

indicated dissent.

[Alex Cunningham]

He is not the Children’s Minister. I understand that we do have a new Children’s Minister, but I am sure that the Treasury Minister wants to understand childcare as much as anyone else does. Believe me, he has some way to go, being a member of the Tory Government.

Childcare delivered fairly for all children plays a major role in ensuring that no individual fails to get the chance of having a better start in life, even before they get into the school classroom. It also helps parents to realise their potential and make the most of their lives. I served as the cabinet member for children and young people at Stockton Council, and I well remember speaking with head teachers after Labour’s groundbreaking Sure Start centres were developed and nursery provision was expanded beyond all recognition. They told me how children were far better equipped and ready for school than the groups that came before them. Their social skills were better, they were used to structure, they were already participating in activities and they had a level of confidence that made them ready to learn. That was all great stuff. The hon. Member for Belfast South spoke about how much more possible educational attainment is for children who have had proper childcare and proper nursery provision. We must not lose sight of that, as it drives results. We see those results in our primary schools and secondary schools today. The children coming out of secondary schools now were among the first to benefit from the Sure Start programme.

I always acknowledge that the coalition Government and the last Conservative Government helped build on Labour’s legacy—children continue to benefit even more—but it is crucial that that success is not undermined by the gap between the haves and the have-nots being widened. We have always had a two-tier system. Even when Governments of the past got sensible and first offered free childcare, those who could afford more and better provision gave some children an advantage. I doubt that will ever change, but surely there is no need for the current Government to make changes that will disadvantage those least likely to be able to afford top-up fees, effectively creating a two-tier system.

When discussing areas of policy relating to childcare and the education of children, it is vital that we focus not only on cost, but on outcome. We know that the early years are one of the most formative times of a person’s life and have significant influence over their development. That is why I urge the Government not to treat childcare as something that can be cut back. By cutting back or reducing access, we put a stop sign in front of the poorest children in our country. From what I see, the changes proposed around the voucher scheme will effectively do just that: reduce provision.

I have looked at the childcare voucher scheme, as other Members have—they have already talked about it—and I compared it with the tax-free childcare system that parents will have no choice but to use if they sign up after April. From my observations, tax-free childcare is considerably the less favourable of the two options. Existing users of childcare vouchers will be able to choose the system that benefits them most, whereas applicants after April will have no such choice. That creates a two-tier system, where some children will be disadvantaged, depending on the amount their parents can afford to pay.

The Prime Minister’s words on the steps of Downing Street 18 months ago are much quoted. She said:

“We will do everything we can to help anybody, whatever your background, to go as far as your talents will take you.”

It is a well-worn quote. I have to believe that those words applied to young children as much as to anyone else, and I just wonder if the Prime Minister knows how these particular proposals fly in the face of her pledge and affect the families she may have once described as “just about managing”. I doubt the new Education Secretary, with whom I served on the Education Select Committee and with whom I share a passion for early years’ provision, would really want to see his first few months in office marred by the creation of a system that was far from equal. Has he even had the chance to reconsider the policy ahead of today’s debate? Since we are debating childcare vouchers, I am sure many of us would tell the Prime Minister and her new Secretary of State that the new tax-free childcare service is not fit for purpose. It does not fairly replace childcare vouchers and they should think again.

There is a real opportunity for the new Secretary of State and the new Children’s Minister—it is a shame he is not here to debate with us today—to demonstrate their listening credentials and order a review of the whole policy area. Potential inequality is not just about the ability to pay; it is also very much about the status of an individual or couple. In the gig economy we are now living in, are we putting the provision for some children at risk because their parents are likely to face rapidly changing working environments? I raised that with the Minister of the day, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), when the policy was being developed in 2014. I said:

“For many, particularly those with fluctuating incomes such as the self-employed, or those likely to have a change in circumstances later in the year, the complexity will be so great that it is likely to be impossible to provide a better off calculator that can cover many of the situations in which claimants find themselves.”—[Official Report, 17 November 2014; Vol. 588, c. 90.]

My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North, who has spoken widely today, also spoke in that debate. She said:

“It is worth remembering that some 520,000 families currently benefit from ESC vouchers. The Government’s impact assessment sets out a number of case studies where families might be better off or, indeed, worse off under the new top-up payments.”—[Official Report, 17 November 2014; Vol. 588, c. 68.]

That was three years ago, so the Government have had enough time to find answers to those problems and inequalities.

The Childcare Vouchers Providers Association highlighted that some families will actually lose money under tax-free childcare compared with vouchers. That point has been repeated several times today, but it is worth repeating: people will lose out. Does the Minister know who will lose out and who will benefit? What is he doing about those who will lose out? Are there any plans to ensure equality of opportunity and access to provision? What happens when a parent in the gig economy earns less than £120 week for a while? At what point do they lose that tax-free childcare? I do not know the answer to that; I hope the Minister does. It seems to me that the system is a wee bit messy and confused. Until there is proper understanding of the change to a complete tax-free childcare system, the Government should at least extend the deadline for childcare vouchers. Has the Minister or the new Secretary of State considered that?

I also note the difference regarding the age of a child receiving tax-free childcare. Vouchers can be used for children up until the September following their 15th birthday, but that figure drops to the September following their 11th birthday under the tax-free system. Can the Minister share with me the logic behind that decision? Are the Government suggesting that 11-year-olds can be left home alone while their parents are at work? Are they assuming that everybody has grandparents and other family members to stay with, or do they have to find the cash themselves to help pay for childcare? We cannot escape the fact that this all boils down to cash: the cash that the Government are prepared to invest in childcare and the cash that some parents will have to find if their children are to be looked after so that they can have peace of mind while they are at work.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I am very much enjoying my hon. Friend’s speech. He raises an important point that I did not elaborate on in my speech, which is the age difference between tax-free childcare and the vouchers scheme. That change seems to totally ignore the reality for the many working families who use the vouchers to fund activities for their children to keep them safe and occupied during the school holidays. Those activities not only have educational and social mobility benefits, but keep their children safe. I do not think the Government recognise that there are ongoing childcare costs up to a much later age than 12.

[Alex Cunningham]

For me, it boils down to a matter of equality. Why should one person at one end of a street have their children cared for until the age of 15 while a person at the other end of the street has to apply under the new system and does not get the same provision? Surely there must be some sort of equality law associated with that. The Government should recognise that issue and take action.

We should not forget that these challenges for parents come at a time when working families are finding life very tough. We have public sector pay freezes, the increased cost of living, escalating transport costs and a lack of wage growth generally. Parents cannot afford to pay extra money over and above what everyone else is paying. I come back to the word “equality”—we should have equality of provision for everyone. Things should not be different from one person to another. It is time not for the Government to add to the burden of some families and exacerbate inequality, but for the Treasury Minister, the new Children’s Minister and the Secretary of State to step back and think again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham]

I have a simple question: is the Minister content that we should have inequality in the system and that some parents should receive a greater benefit than others?

[John Glen]

I am certainly very discontent with a situation where only half of employees are able to access childcare support and no self-employed parents can access any childcare.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks and for the way in which she introduced the debate. She must reflect on the fact that the Government are closing the scheme, but not to existing recipients. There is no question of existing recipients not being able to continue making their current arrangements. It is unrealistic to say that that is the case—we are not shutting it down to existing claimants.

Let me make some progress. As the hon. Lady said in her remarks, tax-free childcare will be rolled out by 14 February 2018, and HMRC has done extensive work to ensure that the childcare system is ready for full roll-out. The advent of tax-free childcare will bring greater benefits to British families: it is better targeted and simpler than childcare vouchers. It is therefore right that we continue with the reform as planned, to the benefit of millions of households. The Government recognise that working parents have to make difficult financial decisions, and we are committed to supporting families to ensure that the cost of childcare does not deter them from working, or working more, if they wish to.

The hon. Member for Belfast South (Emma Little Pengelly) made a thoughtful point about female employment and the gender pay gap. The female employment rate is at a joint-record high of 70.8%. Since 2010, the number of women in work has increased by 1.4 million. I acknowledge that there is more work to be done, but the gender pay gap for full-time employment is at a record low. While I am not complacent—three days into my job at the Treasury, I am already focused on pay equality—we must acknowledge that some progress has been made.

Beyond introducing tax-free childcare, we have demonstrated our commitment to supporting families through multiple measures, to ease the burden that bit more. That is why the Government will be spending more money on childcare support than ever before. By 2020, we will be spending about £6 billion to help parents with the cost of childcare. That includes doubling the free childcare hours for working parents of three and four-year-olds from 15 to 30 hours a week, saving families around £5,000 per year per child. That is making a real difference to the lives of families across the country.

We are supporting working families on the lowest incomes who receive universal credit. We have increased the amount that working parents can get towards their childcare costs through universal credit from 70% to 85%. As wages increase, parents can use the online calculator to decide which offer best meets their needs: staying on universal credit or moving to tax-free childcare.

The Government have been gradually introducing tax-free childcare to replace childcare vouchers since April 2017 and, as I have said, tax-free childcare has a greater reach than childcare vouchers. Today, we announced that the offer is now open to families whose youngest child is under nine, and on 14 February it will open to all families with children aged under 12 who meet the earnings criteria. Each parent in the household must earn the equivalent of 16 hours at minimum wage a week—about £120 a week—and each parent must earn less than £100,000 per annum. Those criteria will ensure that the majority of working households will benefit, and it means that those working parents who are excluded from childcare vouchers because they earn at or just above the minimum wage will be able to access tax-free childcare.

Because tax-free childcare does not require any input from an employer, many self-employed parents will be able to get help with childcare costs for the very first time. Tax-free childcare is also a simpler system for parents to navigate. Parents open an online account and manage their deposits and childcare payments through it themselves. The system will also be easier and simpler for childcare providers to manage as they will no longer have to deal with multiple voucher providers. Tax-free childcare also offers more generous support for parents of disabled children, who can get up to £4,000 a year and remain eligible for tax-free childcare until the age of 17.

I will have to look into the assessments and write to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe). At this point, I do not know whether that data exists. However, once tax-free childcare is open to all eligible parents and fully established, we expect it to be worth around £1,100 a year per household. That additional support is essential for many parents to return to work. It is clear that the replacement of childcare vouchers with tax-free childcare will bring huge benefits to parents.

I want to address points made by a number of hon. Members on delivery. The childcare service is a groundbreaking new digital service and, as of today, more than 300,000 parents have opened an online account. The hon. Members for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) and for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) referred to internet access, and the hon. Gentleman referred to banking issues, which we discussed on Thursday. The childcare service helpline can be called when online access cannot be secured.

We have seen a reduction in errors on screen down to 2%—it was 5% to 6% last summer. Enormous progress has therefore been made. The hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) asked about an iron-clad guarantee, which is a little unrealistic given what has happened to Government IT projects for all parties over all generations since we have had IT. However, HMRC is working closely in partnership with National Savings and Investments, and with Atos as a delivery partner. Significant progress is being made to reduce those error screens significantly, to give a greater level of confidence on the roll-out of the new scheme.

While the vast majority of parents have used the service without difficulties, I acknowledge that some have experienced them. I can only apologise to those individuals. HMRC has apologised to those parents and has already made significant improvements to the childcare service, as I just set out. Overall, parents are receiving eligibility results more quickly, with the vast majority receiving a response within five working days, if not immediately, and fewer parents are experiencing technical difficulties.

HMRC will continue to implement technical updates to improve further the experience for all customers. It has arrangements in place to ensure that no parents miss out as a result of technical issues, and it is providing payments directly to parents in lieu of the Government top-up. Where individuals have missed out, compensation is available for those sums missed out on due to those technical issues. As I mentioned, a dedicated helpline is provided.

I want to address the reach of tax-free childcare. The scheme is designed to be responsive to parents’ needs. All parents who would have been eligible for childcare vouchers will be eligible for tax-free childcare provided that they have a child aged under 12 and that they and their partner, if they have one, earn around £120 a week. The generous upper earnings limit of £100,000 per parent means that the vast majority of working parents will be able to claim help with childcare costs.

However, the Government recognise that a small number of parents who were eligible for vouchers will not be eligible for tax-free childcare. Most of those parents will no longer be eligible as they are couples with only one partner in work, or where one is earning over £100,000 a year. Government spending has to be prioritised where it will have the biggest impact. We have struck a balance between universal childcare offers and those targeted to support families who need help the most with the costs of childcare. Tax-free childcare is better targeted than vouchers, where support is dependent on who a parent works for rather than the needs of their household.

[Alex Cunningham]

I sense that the Minister is getting towards the end of his speech. People in the gig economy see tremendous fluctuations in their income and might not meet the £120-a-week threshold at any one time. What will the Government do about such people? Will they just drop out?

[John Glen]

The hon. Gentleman makes a characteristically sensible point, and I am happy to look into the matter and write to him. I do not have a detailed answer that I am happy to give him now.

Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 8th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

As my right hon. and learned Friend will know, article 50 was invoked—the decision was taken to invoke that particular article—with the consequences that we will exit the European Union on 29 March 2019, and therefore leave the European Union customs union. However, clause 31 does indeed facilitate our future ability to enter into customs union arrangements with other customs unions or territories, subject to the express will of Parliament, as I detailed with reference to the affirmative resolution that would have to be passed by the House.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

The Manufacturing Trade Remedies Alliance tells me that 7,000 manufacturing jobs, including 2,500 in the chemicals industry, will be at risk in my constituency if the UK does not establish effective trade remedies. If there is no customs union, how will the Government guarantee that manufacturing workers will not be negatively affected by unfairly priced or subsidised imports?

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman raises the extremely important matter of protecting our UK producers from dumped goods in this country, goods that have been subject to excessive subsidy, and indeed import surges that arise for other reasons. That is why this Bill and the Trade Bill, which will have its Second Reading tomorrow, make provision to set up a Trade Remedies Authority with the ability and powers to investigate appropriately the kinds of issues to which the hon. Gentleman alludes, and to ensure that we are able to take remedial action, in terms of additional duties and so on, to ensure that we properly address those particular threats as and when they occur.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

We will get as much scrutiny as possible on this Bill.

Having completely failed to create a strong and stable Government at the last election, the Prime Minister seems to be ignoring the will of the electorate and grabbing power by any means necessary. That is particularly the case with this Bill, where Ministers are being handed powers to set import and export duties, preferential rates and quotas across any good or service sector in our economy. This Bill will give the Government the power fundamentally to reshape the environment in which our economy operates with a few strokes of a pen.

[Alex Cunningham]

As my hon. Friend says, it is critical that Parliament has a say. CF Fertilisers on Teesside is worried about the dumping of cheap goods, particularly from Russia, if we do not get the anti-dumping legislation right. The Minister says that will be addressed by this Bill and by the Trade Bill, which will have its Second Reading tomorrow, but I cannot see anything that says so. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is all the more reason why we need much more time in Committee to ensure that such guards are put in place?

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend makes a good point that we need to have absolute scrutiny of the Government’s proposals.

We know what the Government would do with the powers contained in this Bill. They would tear up protections for British producers and consumers, throw workers’ rights on to the bonfire and create a free-market offshore tax haven—a miserable pound-shop economy. The Government know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

The Government do not have the authority to act in that way. The referendum and the recent election show a country divided, and it is Parliament’s job to reflect the country’s will and to develop a workable consensus. This Government, much like the disastrous Major Administration, have no mandate to implement such far-reaching changes, which is why the Labour party’s reasoned amendment would deny the Bill a Second Reading. We demand that the Government return with a Bill that sets out a clear path to our mutual objective of creating a functioning institutional framework for the handling of customs once we leave the European Union, one that provides the proper powers of scrutiny to Parliament, as promised by the leave campaign and as determined by the citizens of the UK in the recent election. Anything less is an affront to our democratic process and will only spell disaster for our country as this weak Prime Minister becomes prey to the worst instincts of many Conservative Members.