Finance (No. 2) Bill

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 19th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dawn Butler]

New clause 6 stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and those of other Members on both sides of the House. The aim of both new clauses is basically to help the Government. We want them to set an example to every Department and public sector organisation by fulfilling their own obligation under the public sector equality duty and publishing a meaningful equality impact assessment. The equality duty covers nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy, maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.

The Prime Minister says that she understands the problems faced by members of protected groups and that her Government are committed to tackling inequality in the ways set out in the equality duty, but one thing confuses me. If she understands all that, why does she allow her policies to undermine and hurt women and other groups with protected characteristics? Such “words over deeds” undermine people’s trust in politics and politicians.

How can I be sure that the Prime Minister knows these problems so well? There have been two stand-out moments. The first was in 2010, when the Prime Minister said:

“there are real risks that women, ethnic minorities, disabled people and older people will be disproportionately affected by proposed cuts to public spending.”

The second was when she said, on the steps of No. 10, that she wanted to tackle the “burning injustices” in our society. But all that she has done is make things worse. She has added fuel to the fire, and those injustices now burn brighter than ever. The Chancellor said that this Budget would be full of new opportunities—for whom? He failed to address the position of women born in the 1950s, violence against women and girls, the crisis in social care, falling wages, and a social security system that is leaving millions of children in poverty.

I am sure that the Minister will disagree with some of what I am saying, but let me challenge him. This is his opportunity—his moment—to carry out a comprehensive equality impact assessment, publish it, and prove me wrong.

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

One of the issues that my hon. Friend has not mentioned—although I am sure that she will come to it—is the underfunding of women’s refuges.

[Dawn Butler]

My hon. Friend is right: I will indeed come to that issue.

As we approach Christmas, I ask the Minister to consider the impact that the Government’s policies are having. More than 128,000 children will be in temporary accommodation over Christmas, women’s refuges—as my hon. Friend has just said—are in crisis, and universal credit will leave people penniless and homeless over the Christmas period.

--- Later in debate ---

Analysis can assume income is shared equally; may I highlight one problem that Labour solved and the Conservatives have now recreated? The decision to pay tax credits to the main carer, rather than the main earner, was a decision made by a Labour Government in 1997, and it was based on evidence—evidence that money paid to women was more likely to be spent on children than money paid to men. Universal credit has just reversed all of that. If this Government conducted proper impact assessments, they would know this stuff.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

My hon. Friend is making an interesting point. I am sure she agrees that, given that this Government and the previous Government talked about £12 billion in cuts, and therefore universal credit must fit that target, that is why they will not conduct an impact study.

[Dawn Butler]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes a powerful statement, and it points to the crux of the new clauses: if the Government would only do impact assessments even as the policy goes forward, they would be able to say, “Okay, this isn’t working: it’s hurting; it’s damaging people. Let’s do something different.” But, in their arrogance, they refuse to do that.

The House of Commons Library uses a different calculation in its assessments. I admit that some of the assessments are not straightforward, but that does not mean that they should not be done; after all, they are the Government. Most recently, the Government have argued that the equality impact analysis carried out by the Women’s Budget Group and the Runnymede Trust does not take into account the impact of increases to the national living wage or spending on services that benefit women such as health, education, childcare and social care. I say again: “Oh yes it does.” Their report, “Intersecting Inequalities”, includes the impact of both the national living wage and changes to spending on a wide range of services. When the cuts to services are added, the impact is more severe. The Treasury says that individual Departments are responsible for the equality impacts of their own policies; yes they are, but the Treasury should also be responsible for publishing the equality impact of policies, since it sets the overall budget limits, and any impact assessments carried out should be available for everyone to see, and not hidden away.

The Government’s arguments are just excuses, allowing them to evade accountability for the impact of their policies. That shows a lack of commitment to tackling the major inequalities in our society. This Government are so evasive: we are still awaiting a response to the cross-party letter sent to the Minister for Women and Equalities on 29 November highlighting major concerns on this very issue.

If we were in Scotland or Wales, we would be legally obligated to carry out and publish equality impact assessments. We are the mother of all Parliaments and we should be leading the way. What is wrong with getting the facts and making policy based on them? That is sensible and it is right; people outside this place will not understand what the reluctance is all about.

The Minister will probably talk in his response about “due regard”, but what does “due regard” mean? There is some legal definition of due regard. The courts have said that it means sufficient information, so even on a lower bar of “due regard” this Government and their Departments are still failing, as they tend to produce superficial equality impact assessments.

I concede that more needs to be done to establish robust analysis, but if Scotland and Wales can do it, why cannot we? Current analysis should be taken as a starting point for Government action, not an excuse for inaction, so I call upon the Chancellor to give the country a Christmas present and to commit to doing things properly.

As my Christmas gift to the Government, here are three things as a start in that process. First, they should consider the impact of their policies at all stages of the legislative process. That means the Government examining the differential and intersectional impact of their policies and, if necessary, changing course to ensure equality of outcome. Secondly, they should work with organisations such as the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Women’s Budget Group and the Runnymede Trust to produce analysis with a high level of detail. Thirdly, they should commission the Office for Budget Responsibility to carry out an independent review into the effects of the provisions of this Bill.

Everyone in this House can help tackle the burning injustices that blight our country today by voting for new clauses 6 and 7.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in support of new clauses 6 and 7, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler).

Under the public sector equality duty, all public bodies, including the Treasury, are obliged to have “due regard” to the impact of their policies on equality. Yet, once again, this Government have refused to carry out a meaningful equality audit of their Budget.

I am grateful that the House of Commons Library has done research, and it has consistently shown that 86% of the burden of Tory tax and benefit changes since 2010 has fallen on the shoulders of women. Today, I will tell the stories of women impacted by this, and show how they are bearing the brunt of failed Tory austerity.

Women make up two thirds of public sector workers so have suffered most from the Tories’ pay cap. Women have to struggle with more caring responsibilities due to the ever-increasing gap in social care funding. Some 54,000 women a year are forced out of their jobs through maternity discrimination. Women in my constituency of Rotherham earn 11.9% less on average than men. And, shamefully, 94 women and 90 children are, on a typical day, turned away from refuges due to lack of space, according to Women’s Aid.

Let me talk about some specific cases. I want to talk about Martha, a single mother. A recent report by the Runnymede Trust and the Women’s Budget Group shows that by 2020 single mothers like Martha will have experienced an average drop in living standards of 18% since 2010. As a part-time NHS worker, Martha’s real pay has been slashed under the Tories. NHS staff have suffered a 14% real-terms pay cut since 2010. With inflation at a near six-year high of 3.1%, more and more women like Martha are struggling to put food on their table. Martha is not just about managing; Martha is only just about surviving.

The Women’s Budget Group and the Runnymede Trust analysis shows that black employed women, like Martha, are set to lose the most from cuts and changes to universal credit—around £1,500 a year. These changes include cutting the first child premium, which came into effect this year and would have been worth £545 a year to Martha.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

A good example of the burden being been put on women is through tax adjustments. Under the last Government and this one, women have lost £14 billion in that way. Another good example is Sure Start. Women cannot get out to work because there are no Sure Start facilities.

[Sarah Champion]

That is the biggest frustration. We need the Government to audit all their policies and start to recognise the trends when certain groups are disproportionately impacted. We all pay our taxes and we all want the same services, but surely the best thing for the economic growth of this country is for everyone to be able to reach their economic potential. That is surely the best way to get this country back on its feet economically.

According to research by the Child Poverty Action Group, 61% of parents working part time who wanted to work more hours said that the cost of childcare was a barrier, and no wonder, when Government cuts mean that there are now 1,240 fewer Sure Starts than there were in 2010. Yet there was no mention of childcare in the recent Budget. When 41% of women in work have part-time jobs, compared with just 13% of men, it is clear how these policies have a disproportionate impact on women. An equality impact assessment would put a spotlight on those inequalities and on the need for action—but of course we can only assume that that is why the Government refuse to carry out such assessments.

--- Later in debate ---

What does that actually mean? It means children coming to school with empty bellies; and parents, usually women, reducing their portions or skipping meals to make sure their children get enough—worse, the children know their parents are doing this. It is about the daily grind of people having bills through their door and that sinking feeling that they cannot pay them, and having the fear of the sanctions—further punishments for poverty—and all the while people are working extremely hard for that existence. The latest figures show that households in the north-east have £100 pounds less to spend a week than those in the south-east.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the limit on child benefit now increases poverty? Does she recall that one of the Government’s slogans used to be, “Let’s make work pay”? Well, it does not pay because poverty wages are being paid.

[Laura Pidcock]

Absolutely. We are seeing lots of inadequacies in the universal credit system, which completely smash out of the water the idea that work pays under the Conservative Government.

Even taking account of housing costs, which I know take a huge slice of wages from people in the south-east, in the north-east we are still £84 a week worse off. The disparities in investment in my constituency create a vicious circle. We cannot attract the large-scale business investment that we desperately need without the infrastructure and the skilled people, and as much as Derwentside College in my constituency is a beacon of excellence in the education it provides, it is like every other further education establishment in the country in that it has a dwindling budget with which to educate the future skilled workforce that we need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The calculations made by economists and accountants, such as Mr Murphy, reflect the cost to our Exchequer of international profit shifting, which the Government’s estimate of the tax gap does not.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

Does my hon. Friend agree that low wages mask inefficiency? One of the big problems with the economy is that we have 4 million or 5 million people in that category, which encourages less efficiency, not improvements.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, a problem that underlines our productivity gap is the worryingly low levels of private investment in our economy, which is reducing efficiency and places Britain outside the sphere of many comparable nations on investment. Sadly, the Government did not grasp that problem in the Budget.

The Opposition are calling for a review in the absence of the ability to call for more wide-ranging changes to the Bill given the Government’s unwillingness to table a general amendment to the law motion as part of this Finance Bill. That is unfortunate given the lack of new measures in the Bill, the limitations of the measures that are included, and the fact that much of the Bill represents a cleaning-up of previously announced but ill-thought-through measures. I will deal with each of those matters in turn.

It is, to say the least, regrettable that Members from across this House are unable to introduce new measures to the Bill. Labour’s tax transparency and enforcement programme sets out several areas where the Government should be taking action to tighten up our leaky ship, but we see no such ambition from the current Administration. Again, there is an unwillingness to engage with those who do have the energy and expertise to promote new measures.

When it has been possible for Members to amend Finance Bills, they have often done so to good effect. So it was that my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) amended what became the Finance Act 2016, giving the Government the power to introduce public country-by-country reporting and requiring multinational firms to indicate their profits, staff and tax paid in the different jurisdictions in which they operate. The measure is already in practice in the banking and extractive industries, where it has effectively promoted tax transparency and has offered a lot of evidence and information that has been very helpful to investors in those fields, but Members on both sides of the House who are keen to see the Government use the powers already available under the 2016 Act to make country-by-country reporting public, and who believe the Government should be playing a leadership role in this area, are sadly emasculated by the Government’s unwillingness to allow colleagues to table proper amendments to this Bill.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 18th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

I thank my hon. Friend for that perceptive and helpful intervention. There is no question but that a healthy banking system is absolutely central to a healthy economy, which is why we have invested so much time and energy since 2010 in making sure that the regulation of the banks is tightened up, which was, of course, part of the original rationale for the bank levy. The fact that we are reducing the bank levy over time from 2015 and moving towards taxing profits is in itself an indication of the health of our banking system.

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

Is the Minister satisfied that the banks have enough in reserve to cope with any emergency should there be a downturn in the world economy?

[Mel Stride]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Bank of England carries out stress tests on our banking system. In the latest round, the banks came through very strongly—not a single one failed. The tests stress the system to a greater extent than the effect of the last financial crash in 2008, so we can be certain that the measures the Government have put in place, the operation of the independence of the Bank of England and carrying those things through are having the desired effect that he rightly seeks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend raises an important point about connectivity, particularly in rural areas, including in constituencies such as mine where making sure there is good broadband is often one way of reducing sparsity and people being cut off from each other, and that is why we have invested so heavily in that area.

These changes are expected to increase the additional tax contribution from banks by more than £4.6 billion over the current forecast period to 2022-23.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

Will the Minister look into a situation that a number of us have had letters about? In the case of certain banks, including HSBC, where a person who is on a bank’s pension retires, that retirement pension is deducted because of their old-age pension. I do not expect an answer right away, but will the Minister look into that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

Thank you for bringing us back to the land of reality, Sir Roger. I very much appreciate it.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

Let us get real and say to the Government that at the end of the day, when we are in government, our Chancellor will carry out the policies of that Labour Government, whatever his personal views are. More importantly, many comments have been made about the previous Labour Government tonight, but the previous Chancellor said that it was not the Labour Government who created the financial crisis. If we had not capitalised the banks, many of those on the Conservative Benches would be in the poorhouse today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

No, I will push on for a moment.

It is worth pointing out that the bank levy was not the brainchild of a Conservative Government. It was not introduced by the previous Chancellor after he had listened to the clear public outrage aimed at the reckless decisions made by some in the banking sector, who plunged the world into one of the greatest economic crises in modern times. As much as Government Members would like to blame the Labour Government for a world financial crisis, that is stretching credibility a little too far. [Interruption.] It is nice to see that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is shouting across the Chamber, but I cannot quite hear her, so if she wants to intervene—or shout a little louder—so that I can actually hear her question, I will be more than happy to answer. It is nice to see her in the Chamber.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

It is probably right to look at the history, rather than listening to the made-up stuff coming from Conservative Members. Let us be clear that the financial crisis started with Lehman Brothers in America. We recapitalised the banks, and we kept our triple A rating so that we could borrow to bail out the banks in the first place. The Government are trying to take the credit for something that they did not do.

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend is right. Conservatives always try to take the credit. They take responsibility for the good things and no responsibility for the bad things—it is the way they are made.

The banking levy was not designed to ensure that the banks received enormous and unprecedented bail-outs from the taxpayer, such as the £76 billion of shares the Government purchased in RBS and Lloyds. It was designed to make them pay their fair share. In fact, the very concept of a levy was developed at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh in 2009. It was championed by the previous Labour Government, who subsequently introduced the bankers’ bonus tax. In the coalition’s 2011 austerity Budget, the Government decided to dump the bankers’ bonus tax and adopted the bank levy. At the time, Labour made it clear that the levy threshold was far too low in comparison with the money that would be raised if the Government stuck with Labour’s bonus tax. Instead, Ministers wilted under pressure from the banks and set the levy at a puny £2.6 billion.

Public Sector Pay

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Monday 4th December 2017 Westminster Hall

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

Workers have suffered the longest stagnation of wages since a royal prince was about to get married—Prince George, the son of Queen Victoria—when Disraeli and Gladstone were in No. 10 Downing Street and trade unions were illegal, 150 years ago. The hardest hit have been public servants, with a 4.4% increase since 2010 against a background of a 22% cost-of-living increase.

Who are the public servants we are talking about? The Unison home help I met last year who was buying Easter eggs—“Is the council paying for them?” I asked, to be answered, “No, I am buying them myself and taking them around to all the people I care for, because some of them never see anyone else from one month to the next.” Tracey the neonatal intensive care nurse who nursed little Liam, who died seven times, back to life. The headteacher, teaching assistant and teacher in Kingstanding who were rescuing children from desperate poverty by turning around their prospects. They took one particular young boy from the bottom of the class to the top, despite the fact that he came from a household with no carpets, no curtains and no cupboards, with clothes stored in bin bags—acute poverty, but the school turned his life around. The police officers who chased the armed bank robber and recovered for Lucy her children, who had been hijacked by him as he sped away from the police. None so noble as those who care, none so noble as those who save lives and nurse the sick back to health, none so noble as those who provide ladders of opportunity, particularly for the poorest in our society, and none so noble as those who put their life at risk to help save the lives of others.

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

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Jack Dromey]

Because of the pressure of time, I will not, so that more people can speak.

The reward of those public servants is rising demand, rising workload and falling living standards. That is the impact of not only pay restraint but major cuts to, for example, local government budgets, leading in turn to problems with increments, shift changes and fewer people being employed, so those left having to do more. In our constituencies we can all see the impact on them and their families, as they have to turn to debt advice, pawning household goods, taking out payday loans and food banks, such as the home carer I met in a food bank in my constituency—a proud woman with two kids who loved her job but could not make ends meet without going to the food bank.

If public servants are suffering, so too are public services, through the turnover of labour and the stress on staff—very often, staff complements are stretched to the maximum and those who work in public services are demoralised. There is an impact on local economies, because if public servants get a pay rise, they do not salt away their money into Cayman Islands bank accounts; they spend it in the local economy, creating wealth and jobs. There is a grotesque contrast between the way that public servants are treated and what has been revealed in the paradise papers. This is a Britain where we have a Conservative Government that stand back and allow tax dodgers to get away with it, and then the Prime Minister says during the general election campaign to a nurse that there is no such thing as a magic money tree. Yes, there is, and they grow on the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and Jersey, helping the wealthy to avoid their responsibility to society.

I am grieved because I am from a family of public servants: when my dad came off the roads he was a train driver on the London underground; my mum was a nurse; my Uncle Mick, who lived with us, was a street cleaner. They believed in public services, as the country believes now in public services and public servants, but public servants have been let down by a failing, uncaring Government. It is interesting that a monastic vow of silence has been taken by those opposite, who have been reluctant to get up and defend what their Government are doing. The unmistakable message from this debate is that they may stay quiet but we will not. Labour is on the side of public servants.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I wish to declare an interest; I used to be employed by Unison, which brought forward the petition and also donated to my general election campaign, together with Unite and GMB.

The Government’s austerity agenda has not only done great damage to our public sector services but brought our NHS to the brink of collapse. Indeed, in Hartlepool, our local hospital is at risk of haemorrhaging services, which is unacceptable to the people. I know from experience that relentless cuts and redundancies have led to remaining staff being over-stretched and under extreme pressure. For more years than I care to remember, those same workers have suffered pay restraints and pay caps. In the light of inflation, that has meant, in effect, that they have suffered a real-terms pay cut. It is a sad indictment of the situation created by this Government that health workers and other public sector workers in my constituency are resorting to food banks.

Things have got so bad that Unison gives out school uniform grants and other welfare provisions for those trapped in in-work poverty, and local branches increasingly issue food bank vouchers to their members who are in need. It is unacceptable that this situation has arisen and that NHS and other public sector workers are struggling to get by on low pay. The pay cap has been cited as one of the reasons why nurses have been leaving the profession in droves, yet its main purpose—addressing Government debt—has failed. Since the cap was introduced, Government debt has grown by around 50%, to reach £1.7 trillion in May this year. Our hard-working NHS staff should not suffer the burden of propping up—

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

My hon. Friend has probably heard Ministers say how wonderful our public services are and that what staff and our emergency services do is wonderful. But does he agree that the best thing that the Government could do is to improve on the recommendations of the wages board for a big increase—not the one that the Government might be proposing? More importantly, does he agree that that the Government should put their money where their mouth is, and give those staff a decent increase?

[Mike Hill]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The Government’s words are hollow when they say that they will look at the pay review bodies but they have not committed to the recommendations of those pay bodies.

Our hard-working NHS staff should not suffer the burden of propping up the Government’s failed and farcical fiscal policy. They deserve a pay rise and they deserve it now.

Budget Resolutions

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel). She will not be surprised that I take a slightly different view of the decision our country made on Brexit, but nevertheless I thought she gave an interesting speech. I was also interested in the comments of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) about the need to reform capitalism. I thought his proposals rather timid, but they were at least a start in terms of recognising how corporate culture needs to change. I gently encourage him that there are forms of public ownership that he should look at with a little more enthusiasm than his remarks suggested he did. If I have time, I hope to pick up on some of those.

The most striking features of the Budget thus far are the revelations about the cost of Brexit. The OBR’s downgrade of growth forecasts means that for the first time in modern history the official UK GDP growth forecast for every year being forecast is under 2%. The setting aside of an extra £3 billion to fund the cost of Brexit is quite extraordinary. I do not remember anyone in the leave campaign even hinting at such costs. Earlier this month, the Bank of England Governor gave his verdict on the economy, when he said that “Britain would be booming” were it not for the “Brexit effect”. Indeed, with favourable conditions and stronger growth in other parts of the world—sadly, notably in the eurozone—Britain has fallen from the top to the bottom of the league of G7 leading economies in the year since the Brexit vote. Perhaps most strikingly, foreign investment in Britain is 20% lower than the Bank of England forecast before the referendum result.

It is easy, therefore, to be even more concerned than we might have been about the cost of Brexit. The evidence that businesses are now beginning to produce to explain why they are falling back on investment decisions is perhaps not surprising, given that the Cabinet themselves cannot decide what kind of trading relationship they want with our European partners, and the truth is that ordinary households are paying the price. According to a report published this month by the Centre for Economic Performance, the impact of inflation and a weaker pound since the referendum means that the average worker has experienced a real-terms cut of nearly £450 in annual pay, the equivalent of a week’s salary. But, sadly, the Government march on, insisting that we will leave the customs union and the single market, and that no deal may well be an acceptable outcome.

Just recently, we have heard striking evidence from car manufacturers such as Honda about the potential cost of leaving the customs union. For some manufacturers, it will be up to £850,000 a year. Honda estimates that it would take 18 months for it to set up the warehouses and the procedures that it would need if Britain left the customs union, which the Government insist will happen in 17 months’ time. That is genuinely worrying for the future of jobs in this country.

The general election confirmed that there is no mandate for a hard Brexit, so even at this late stage I urge Ministers—and, if I may do so gently, those on my own Front Bench—to explore again soft Brexit options such as membership of the European economic area. Not only would that potentially allow new arrangements in respect of issues of concern to the British people such as judicial authority and freedom of movement, but it would, crucially, provide significant economic certainty for the future.

The second aspect of the Budget that I want to deal with is its failure to tackle the crisis in funding for public services. I found it striking, given the terrorist attacks that our country has experienced this year, that the Chancellor made absolutely no mention of additional funds for the police or, indeed, additional investment in tackling the ongoing threat of terrorism. Harrow has lost 173 police officers since 2010. Violent crime has risen, and knife crime in particular is up by 60%. There have been stabbings in both south Harrow and Harrow town centre, which is something that my constituency has not experienced for a considerable time. The fear of crime is therefore substantially on the increase.

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

My hon. Friend has mentioned police numbers and the rise in knife crime. The West Midlands has lost more than 2,000 policemen. How can knife crime, and other crimes for that matter, be tackled when a police force is being reduced? A more important point can be made about public services. Instead of telling the police, the fire brigades and the nursing and medical profession what they are doing, why do the Government not pay them a decent wage? Is that not the best way of thanking them for the services that they give?

[Gareth Thomas]

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. It worries me that the Government have chosen to do nothing about the real threat of a further loss of 3,000 to 4,000 police officers, which the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Cressida Dick, has said will happen if there is no increase in the Met police budget. As a consequence of the lack of funding, Harrow will be merged with Barnet and Brent. Barnet’s burglary rates have increased substantially of late, and Brent has a significant gang problem. Many of my constituents understandably fear that police will be taken out of our borough to deal with problems in the two other boroughs, and that crime in Harrow will not be tackled in the way that they might have hoped.

In the national health service, I think it significant that the extra resources that both the King’s Fund and the head of the NHS said were necessary have not been provided. There has been some uplift, and I obviously welcome that, but it is striking that just last year, 2.5 million people waited for more than four hours in accident and emergency departments, compared with the 350,000 when Labour left office, and 4 million people are currently on the waiting list for treatment in an English hospital.

Northwick Park Hospital, which serves my constituency, is the second-busiest trust in London, following the Government’s decision to close the A&E departments at Hammersmith Hospital and Central Middlesex Hospital. In my constituency, we worry that Ealing Hospital’s A&E is also due to close. Our trust ended the last financial year some £60 million in deficit with an underlying deficit of almost £100 million, and it is expected to make savings of £50 million in the current financial year, which the leadership of the trust says is an unprecedented challenge, so hon. Members can understand why my constituents will be deeply worried about the implications of this Budget for their hospital.

Similarly, many schools in my constituency are under considerable financial pressure, having to not fill teaching assistant vacancies and replacing experienced staff who leave with newly qualified teachers. The Budget does nothing to address those problems, and there is nothing on the financial crisis in adult social care or on the increasing crisis facing children’s services.

Lack of time prevents me from picking up the challenge that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield laid down—a debate on how one reforms capitalism—but there might be potential in a series of co-operative and mutual solutions. We particularly need an increase in co-operative housing, and I think that the Royal Bank of Scotland should be converted into a building society. Far more also needs to be done to encourage an increase in energy co-operatives to challenge the dominance of the big six players.

Duties of Customs

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 20th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

If that is indeed the case, anyone who is surprised by that speech has not been listening to the debate to date. It seems that the whole thrust of the Government’s negotiating position so far has been to just walk away—that no deal would be the best deal to have. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) said at Prime Minister’s questions not long ago, the Prime Minister is in thrall to the extreme right-wing Brexiteers of the Conservative party, and that is dictating the Government’s policy. We can see from this evening’s debate that that is true.

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

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We will have to think about investment in this country if there is no deal, because a lot of international companies have invested here for the option of being able to trade in Europe. There would be serious consequences, particularly for industry.

[Ian Murray]

Indeed, and I will come to more of those arguments later in my speech. The Foreign Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, visited the border regions in Ireland and Northern Ireland just last week, and one of the key concerns we heard from the businesses that employ many thousands of workers on both sides of the border was that they use the UK as the transit route into the European Union. We are the landing strip for all the goods they export through the United Kingdom into the European Union, because it is the fastest way; the alternatives are not suitable for their businesses. It will be exactly the same for businesses in Coventry, in Aberdeen and in Edinburgh South. The hon. Member for Aberdeen South spoke eloquently about the Scotch whisky industry, which we all defend and champion. That industry needs easy access to the markets in which it sells its products, so it too is pushing for as close a deal as possible to the customs union.

HMRC Closures

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Thursday 2nd November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered HM Revenue and Customs closures.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing me to open this hugely important debate. I also thank more than 20 colleagues from different parties for their support in making the debate happen—including you, of course, Mr Davies. Thank you very much indeed for your enthusiastic support.

We need this debate first and foremost for the sake of hard-working staff at Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, who face massive change and uncertainty. I know that many Members present represent HMRC employees in their own constituencies. I put on record my thanks for everything that those workers do, and I also highlight the hard work done by the local shop stewards in the Public and Commercial Services Union. The Government are fond of saying that there is no magic money tree, but there is the hard work of tens of thousands of public sector workers who are putting up with what has become years of uncertainty, thanks to endless change programmes.

This debate is hugely important for towns such as Cumbernauld in my constituency, which seem set to lose major employers.

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

The HMRC office in Coventry is going to close very soon, costing about 300 jobs. People will be expected either to travel into Birmingham or to use modern technology. We all know that at least a third of the population is not familiar with modern technology, so they will have great difficulties in terms of travel, expense and inconvenience.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman makes a series of valid points, and they are valid for the whole range of sites affected by the “Building our Future” agenda. In Cumbernauld, for example, HMRC is the largest employer, providing about 1,500 good-quality jobs. I am not making the argument that once a Government Department opens in a particular location, it must stay there forever. What I am saying is that, first, the implications for that town should form part of the Government’s thinking and, secondly, there should be very good reasons for closing any such office. “Building our Future” fails on both counts.

Taxation: Beer and Pubs

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 31st October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

rose—

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

rose—

[Mike Wood]

I will give way just one last time and then I must make some progress.

[Mr Cunningham]

In the last Parliament, there was a Bill on this subject; I think that a Liberal Democrat introduced it. Certainly the landlords of Coventry’s pubs are voicing a lot of concern about this matter. There is a big effect on pubs—many are now closing—but also a big effect on high streets. Coventry has universities, and sometimes the students have jobs in the pubs, so they subsidise their—

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

Order. I call Mike Wood.

Finance Bill

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 31st October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman]

I am not sure that that was a redundancy payment that would be counted in this category. I do not know the tax status of the gentleman, or how much tax he would have paid on that or any other payments he received. It does not appear as though the Government are looking to pursue such people. It seems that they are looking to make tax changes.

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

The coalition had the chance to do something about Sir Fred Goodwin. Does the hon. Lady agree?

[Kirsty Blackman]

That was before my time in this House. I am not sure what power Parliament would have had regarding the payments. I obviously do not think that somebody who has demonstrably not behaved very well should get huge sums of money as a result.

The SNP has been clear about our position. We feel that the measure does not offer the protection we would like for workers who are being made redundant. The Government understand that this is our position, and we ask them to make moves on the matter.

[Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak once again in the debate about the taxation of termination payments.

Before entering this place, I was an employment rights lawyer for more than decade, so this issue is very important to me. I have represented employees who had been dismissed and discriminated against day in, day out. Very often, this would involve negotiating termination packages or settlement agreements for them. The Bill seems to make it harder for people to get proper compensation for their ill treatment. Having seen at first hand the devastating effect that dismissal and discrimination can have on someone’s life, I am deeply concerned that the Bill seeks to narrow the scope of termination payments.

An employee can currently receive up to £30,000 in tax-free compensation as part of a settlement package. The figure already excludes from the tax-free amount things that would generally be considered as pay, such as accrued but untaken holiday pay, any unpaid wages or bonuses due, and pay in lieu of notice that is provided for in the contract of employment. However, sums for future loss of earnings or for injury to feelings are generally not subject to tax, provided they do not exceed £30,000.

Far from this being about tax avoidance, it is about properly compensating people who have been wrongly treated rather than treating them as a means to top up the coffers. Despite this, the Government wants to give themselves the power to decrease the tax-free amount that can be paid to an employee upon termination. Under the proposals, the threshold could be reduced using secondary legislation, without the full and proper scrutiny of parliament. The Minister says that the Government have no intention to reduce the threshold.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

The previous Conservative Government changed the redundancy legislation. The purpose of redundancy money is to tide people over until they can get another job, so it should not be taxed at all.

[Ellie Reeves]

We know that redundancy payments and the way in which they are capped means that they often do not adequately compensate people after they have been dismissed from work. The fact that the Government want to give themselves the power to decrease the threshold prompts a question: why do they want to do it if they do not want to exercise that power? It seems that they would treat those who have suffered wrong treatment in the workplace as a source of revenue rather than as victims worthy of support. This is all the more important when taking into account the fact that the tax-free threshold has not increased since 1988.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Barclay]

The Government are committed to increasing infrastructure investment across all regions, including the north-east. Indeed, investment is 30% higher than it was under the Labour Government. It would be better for Opposition Members to recognise the record investment in infrastructure, which is driving productivity and growth.

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

Will the Minister say how much investment is going to the west midlands, as it is very important to the British economy?

[Stephen Barclay]

The investment going to the west midlands as part of the midlands engine and through the devolution deal is part of wider investment—the £23 billion of investment that has been announced through the national productivity investment fund. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the Secretary of State for Transport’s announcement on rail spending between 2019 and 2024, which includes the £24 billion announced just last week.

Finance Bill

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Peter Dowd]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave earlier.

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

It is not for us to provide answers for the Government; it is for the Government to provide answers for us. More importantly, has my hon. Friend noticed that the Government no longer talk about their “economic strategy”? Does he know why that is? It is because they have not got one any more.

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend is an experienced Member and he has hit the nail on the head.