Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

I know that my right hon. Friend was in the hon. Lady’s constituency yesterday. Northern Ireland is of course in a particularly sensitive position because of the land border with the Republic of Ireland, which would be a land border with the EU if we left. There are more people in work in Northern Ireland than ever before and we need to protect that.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

5. What fiscal steps he is taking to support business.

[The First Secretary of State and Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)]

The Government are backing small and large businesses as part of our long-term economic plan. Our corporation tax rates are the lowest in the G20 and will fall even further to 17%. In the Budget, we cut the business rates burden in England for all rate payers and ensured that 600,000 businesses permanently pay no rates at all. This is a Conservative Government who support businesses and the jobs they create.

[Robert Jenrick]

In towns such as Newark, where 11,000 new jobs have been created under this Government, the task ahead is to attract not just any businesses but those that ensure that people are well paid. With that in mind, does the Chancellor acknowledge and agree that not only have 900,000 new businesses been created since 2010, but that the latest research by NatWest shows one in four working people are now in high-skilled, well-paid jobs?

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is right to point out all the good things that are happening in Newark. Across the east midlands, we have seen the creation of 53,000 new small and medium-sized businesses since we came into Downing Street—a remarkable achievement. We have to ensure that we continue to move people up the job scale and that their wages continue to grow. The good news is that of the jobs being created at the moment 80% or so are full time and the majority are in skilled occupations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

rose—

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let me gently mention that we have already heard from the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick)—I remember very well his question, and I rather hope he does. It is one per session—[Interruption.] He can try again at topicals, but not in substantives.

Tax Avoidance and Evasion

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Wednesday 13th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

My hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House made that point last week, giving example after example of cases in which Orders in Council had been issued. They have been used very effectively by successive Governments, and it bewilders me that this Government are not taking that opportunity now.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John McDonnell]

May I press on for a little while? I am only on the third page of my speech. This is getting ridiculous. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman later, but I have already given way a fair amount. As you know, Mr Speaker, I am generous, but I do not want to speak for too long.

Even today, we have not seen the Prime Minister’s full tax return or that of the Chancellor, and it is important that that should happen. The Prime Minister established the principle, which I advocated three months ago, that the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor should publish their tax returns—not summaries; their full tax returns—but that has not happened.

However, what confronts us today is an issue far bigger than any individual. At the centre of the allegations is a single issue. The fundamental problem is not tax avoidance by this individual or that company; those are symptoms of the disease. The fundamental issue is the corruption of democracy itself. At the core of our parliamentary system is the idea that those who levy taxes on the people are accountable to the people. If those who make decisions about our taxation system are believed to be avoiding paying their own taxes, that undermines the whole credibility of our system.

[John McDonnell]

I had better give way to the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) first; otherwise, he will be disappointed.

[Robert Jenrick]

I am grateful to the shadow Chancellor. May I hark back to the point about Orders in Council? Was the shadow Chancellor surprised to learn that his friend and leader, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), once described the use of Orders in Council by the last Labour Government as “extremely undemocratic” and, in fact, “medieval? Does he think that the Leader of the Opposition is a johnny-come-lately on this issue?

[John McDonnell]

It depends on the issue that is being addressed. Sometimes harking back to the medieval period may be the most effective way of dealing with these problems.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

Let me deal with the tax threshold issue. The IFS has said that the biggest gains from the shift in the lower tax thresholds come for the higher earners. They are the ones who get the most and they benefit from the tax threshold moves. It describes the shifting of the tax thresholds as

“very much a giveaway to the better off”.

[Robert Jenrick]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John McDonnell]

I gave way earlier to the hon. Gentleman. I will press on because I know that others want to speak and I am sure he will want to speak himself.

This is a world that the super-rich inhabit. They live by different rules and it is an alien world for the majority of the rest of us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is right. The reality is that the tax gap, as a percentage of tax revenues, has fallen considerably over the past six years, which is testimony to the effort put in by not only this Government but HMRC. Bringing the tax gap down involves considerable challenges, such as tax evasion, tax avoidance, and inadvertent error on the part of taxpayers, which does happen from time to time as I am sure all hon. Members will recognise. We are determined to do what we can do improve and strengthen our systems. I am grateful for the opportunity today to make progress on that.

[Robert Jenrick]

Will the Minister emphasise the point about the tax gap? One of the most relevant measures is the tax gap specifically for those paying corporation tax. It was rising when the coalition Government came to power in 2010 and has fallen by almost 50% over the past six years, which is a major achievement.

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is right that the tax gap in the context of large companies and tax avoidance as a whole have fallen strongly. There is of course always more that we can do, so let me take this opportunity to set out some of those steps.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

To emphasise that point, none of our major international economic competitors has agreed so far to have a public register of beneficial ownership. In fact, the state of Delaware, in which 90% of United States public companies are listed, has said that it has no intention of implementing this. We really are leading the world and leading our major competitors.

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that point, and I will address the subject of the public register in a moment. It is considerable progress to have got central registers at all. We have pressed for that, and I am pleased that overseas territories and Crown dependencies have agreed to sign up to it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

Like the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) I thought that the most important thing to come out of the Panama papers was the revelation of criminality and corruption here and abroad. I hope that HMRC and authorities around the world will take note and bring prosecutions, and that that will lead to further crackdowns on corruption, including in places such as China, where I would not like to be one of the individuals named in the Panama papers. It is right that the authorities should take action.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), I believe that this issue cuts to a question of trust, but the antidote to mistrust is not moralising or phoney outrage; it is credible, practical action that makes a difference and which the public can believe in. That is what the Government have been doing. Just because some Members of the House or the media have not followed this issue; just because the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) did not say anything about this matter during 13 years of the Labour Government; just because he sat on the British Overseas Territories Bill Committee and did not raise any issues of tax evasion; and just because he referred to the Labour Government taking control of the Turks and Caicos Islands as “medieval” and “extremely undemocratic”; and just because others have taken their eye off the ball, it does not mean that the Prime Minister or Government have done the same.

Let me say a few words about the key things that the Government have done, many of which have already been mentioned. Raising the issue of tax evasion at the G8 summit and creating the world’s first public beneficial register of ownership was a major historic development. Many campaigned against it, actually for perfectly legitimate reasons, such as that it is a massive invasion of the privacy of law-abiding people. However, it is a huge step forward in the campaign against tax avoidance and evasion. It is happening in this country first, and we should be proud of that and not make it seem as if it is something that we take for granted. This Government were the first to do that, and other major economies around the world, like the United States, have not done that.

In one month the all-party group on corporate governance, which I help to run, will bring Chief Justice Leo Strine, who runs the Delaware Supreme Court, to Parliament. If Members care about this issue, and if this is not just phoney outrage, they should come to that event and question him about why Delaware—the state in which 90% of the major corporations of the United States are registered—has not yet followed the lead of this Prime Minister. We should encourage him to do the same.

The general anti-avoidance law was another major and controversial measure taken by the previous coalition Government. It was opposed by the Labour party. At the time, the Labour party spokesman said it was inadvisable to take this action until after the conclusion of the base erosion and profit shifting process, so it would not have happened under a Labour Government. It happened under a Conservative and Liberal Democrat Government.

[Mr Robin Walker]

My hon. Friend is making a very interesting point. May I add another initiative which, to be fair, was an initiative of the previous Labour Government? The extractive industries transparency initiative was brought in by Labour, but it did not sign the UK up to it. This initiative is very important for raising tax revenue not just in the UK but around the world, and for making sure there is proper transparency as to where the extractive industries pay their money. Many of us, cross-party, campaigned for that. The Business, Innovation and Skills Committee said it was a mistake for the previous Government not to have signed up to it. This Government have, quite rightly, taken us into it.

[Robert Jenrick]

The point my hon. Friend makes is that practical and credible policies are the way to tackle this issue. We have seen results, contrary to some of the accusations we have heard today. According to the latest HMRC figures, the tax gap was higher in 2009-10 than it is today. The tax gap for corporations, large and small, was 40% to 50% higher. The tax gap for stamp duty was 40% higher under the previous Labour Government than it is today. Loopholes have been closed and practical measures are being brought in. By no means is this the end of the story—of course there is more to do—but I am pleased to say that the UK Government are genuinely leading the world on this issue. I want to see them do a lot more.

Lowering taxes is another important element in encouraging good behaviour, both by individuals and corporations. Corporation tax at 17%, versus 30% in the United States, will be a major step forward. Only the other day, President Obama was forced to take action against Pfizer because of its motivation to move to lower tax jurisdictions because of the 30% corporation tax in the United States.

There is more to do. I do not stand here for one minute claiming that this is mission accomplished, but we have to be clear that a lot of good steps have been taken. It is bad for business to have tax havens operating as they do today. Let me give Members a brief example from a previous career I had working as a managing director of an art business. Many valuable works of art are held in Panama and other such places. One dispute, over the ownership of a painting that had probably been seized by the Nazis, lasted for four years. The likely owners claimed that they did not know anything about the painting or who owned it. That has been revealed, thanks to the Panama papers, to be an outright lie. The Nahmad brothers, global collectors of art, were revealed to be the owners. I suspect that that painting will finally be going back to its legitimate owner in the near future. Tax havens operating as they do today is bad for individuals and bad for business, particularly in such disputes.

I want to close by commenting on tax privacy, an issue raised both in the press, by Polly Toynbee and others, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell. I think this would be a seriously detrimental step for the privacy of individuals in this country and all over the world. The last major occasion I can think of when this occurred in a large developed economy was during the civil war in the United States. To try to encourage compliance when income tax was introduced, tax returns were posted on the walls of courthouses across the United States. It was one of the most unpopular policies in the history of the United States and it did not increase compliance. The Secretary of the Treasury, Andrew Mellon, said:

“It was utterly useless from a Treasury perspective, just the gratification of idle curiosity and filling of newspaper space.”

Setting aside Prime Ministers and politicians, let us defend the right of individuals in this country to have privacy in their business and financial affairs. The legitimate, law-abiding citizens of this country should not be the losers from some individuals taking part in criminal acts.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Monday 11th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, and grateful for the Prime Minister’s and the Minister’s announcements today on tax. May I make two suggestions to the Minister? One is that the UK, through HMRC, should consider adopting the US model that requires taxpayers to list as part of their tax return all foreign bank accounts where they hold more than a minimal amount of money. That would force UK citizens to list those bank accounts that they might hold in other jurisdictions. Secondly, would the Government consider looking into worldwide taxation of earnings, which the US has? That would force UK passport holders to decide whether they want to pay UK taxes for the privilege and security of holding a passport.

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those suggestions. We are not persuaded by the move towards worldwide taxation. On providing information about offshore accounts, if tax is due, people have to provide that information. It is worth pointing out that we are moving into a different environment where it is that much easier for HMRC to obtain information about foreign bank accounts, and it is much, much harder to evade tax, thanks to the common reporting standard and the progress that we are making on beneficial ownership.

The Finance Bill provides opportunities for households. It supports British firms seeking to create jobs and growth, and it ensures that businesses pay the tax that they owe. At a time when storm clouds are gathering on the global horizon, it is right that we do all we can to make our economy strong and secure, to put stability first, and to ensure that the UK remains fit for the future. That is what this Finance Bill does, and I am delighted to commend it to the House.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I would like, if I may, to advance the argument made by the hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan) about the downgrading of productivity. Productivity was the central economic challenge of this Parliament—so said the Chancellor last year. A failure to address the productivity gap between ourselves and our main economic rivals would undermine our competitiveness and reduce living standards, so to address that, the Government published their productivity plan in July 2015.

In our inquiry into the plan—our first in this Parliament—my Select Committee found it to be somewhat worthy but vague, and without the firm delivery and implementation measures needed truly to address the productivity challenge. Of course, it is difficult for any Government to turn around something as substantial and structural as the productivity gap, especially only nine months after the publication of their report, but the downgrade to productivity in last week’s Budget reinforces the Committee’s view that although many measures in the plan were welcome, collectively they did not constitute a radical departure or step change that would really help to boost productivity. Crucially, as the OBR stated in its report last week:

“Lower productivity growth means lower forecasts for labour income and company profits, and thus also for consumer spending and business investment. In aggregate, this reduces tax receipts significantly.”

Productivity improvements require a long-term and sustained approach to business investment, yet the Red Book shows how much business investment—that engine that will power better competitiveness, increase wealth creation and employment generation and, ultimately, bring about higher wages and rising living standards—has stalled. Real business investment fell in the final quarter of last year. The manufacturing sector in our country is in recession. The OBR forecasts that business investment will be 2.6% in 2016, a massive 4.9 percentage points weaker than only four months ago at the time of the autumn statement.

The Government are not helping through their policies. The Chancellor should be encouraging firms to invest in the latest technology, plant and machinery to ensure that they can compete with the most modern kit anywhere in the world, as well as investing in research and innovation to ensure that British-based firms are coming forward with the goods, services and products that the world wants to buy.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

Is that not exactly why the Chancellor has cut corporation tax and capital gains tax: to encourage companies of all sizes, particularly small and medium-sized businesses, to invest in research and development, new products and the jobs of the future?

[Mr Wright]

I would suggest that the approach on capital gains tax is contrary to having a long-term economic plan, as it encourages short termism—people do not scale up, but sell out quickly. That is a major structural concern.

To a large extent, the Chancellor has done positive things in this Parliament to encourage investment. In particular, the changes to the annual investment allowances are very welcome and will allow firms to invest with greater certainty. Other countries, however, are doing much more, and Britain risks missing out. Addressing the huge disincentive in business rates for firms wanting to invest in new plant and machinery should have been at the very top of the Chancellor’s list, and although the changes to business rates for small businesses were welcome and constituted the largest tax cut of this Budget, it seems ridiculous that the Chancellor did not resolve the ludicrous situation whereby a firm faces a larger tax bill in the form of higher business rates by choosing to invest in new plant and machinery. For a Government who pledged to do all they can to rebalance the economy towards manufacturing and specifically, in the past six or seven months or so, to help the hard-hit British steel industry, the omission of that single measure from the Budget was a significant blow for industry, particularly the steel industry, which wanted the Government to give a favourable signal to invest.

--- Later in debate ---

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

We learned many things from last week’s Budget, and we have learned perhaps even more from the fallout since. However, the overriding message we seem to be getting is that, six years into his job, the Chancellor cannot keep a promise and does not seem to learn from his past shambolic Budget mistakes. He promised to balance the books by last year, to get debt falling as a percentage of GDP each year and to keep welfare spending within his welfare cap, but on virtually all of his own fiscal targets, as the independent Office for Budget Responsibility confirmed last week, he has failed to deliver.

Of course, this Government’s shortcomings go much further than the Chancellor’s own meaningless targets. A mere six months ago, the Prime Minister told his party conference that he would govern according to “one nation, modern, compassionate” Conservatism. This is the same Prime Minister who last week cheered on a Budget that cut capital gains tax, raised the threshold for the 40p rate, further cut corporation tax, and would see the poorest losing about £1,500 a year in the next few years while some of the richest gain £200. To top it off, the Chancellor pledged to slash disability benefits by up to £1.3 billion a year, which the OBR estimated would lead to some 370,000 disabled people losing an average of £3,500 a year.

[Robert Jenrick]

I want to give some context on the important point about capital gains tax that is being made by the Opposition. Jim Callaghan created capital gains tax when he was Chancellor in 1965, but it has always been lower under Labour Chancellors than under Conservative Chancellors. Even after this change, capital gains tax will be 2% higher under this Chancellor than it was under Alistair Darling, and indeed Gordon Brown in the previous Labour Government.

[Catherine McKinnell]

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

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

Despite the Chancellor’s so-called

“revolution in the way we govern England”,

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

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

I rise to support today’s Budget. Early in the life of the previous coalition Government, the Chancellor chose to address four central pillars: first, making addressing the deficit mission-critical to this country; secondly, reducing taxes on businesses and individuals by as much as we can afford, given the poisonous legacy of the previous Labour Government; thirdly, investing in the infrastructure and skills that we need to position the United Kingdom for success in the future; and fourthly, cutting the size of government and repositioning ourselves as a competitive economy driven by the private sector so that all of us, and all our children, can face the future with confidence.

Those principles have served the Chancellor well and served my constituents in Newark and Nottinghamshire well, and we heard him address them again today. Let me deal with each in turn. First, on addressing the deficit, the Chancellor continues to make this difficult task mission-critical to himself and to the Government. I was delighted to hear that he remains committed to producing, and is on target to produce, a surplus at the end of this Parliament. It came as no surprise to me to hear that had a Labour Government won the general election in 2010, we would have been £930 billion more in debt. There would have been £930 billion more cumulative borrowing if we had followed Labour’s plans. Though the task ahead remains difficult, we all know what the alternative would have been.

It is rare that I compare the Leader of the Opposition to one of my heroes, Ronald Reagan, but today he reminded me of one of my favourite Reaganisms when the late President said:

“I’m not worried about the deficit—it’s big enough to take care of itself.”

It is not too large to take care of itself—it has to be the central objective of this and any future Government. I am one of those MPs who would place a deficit or national debt clock on a wall of the House of Commons instead of our current one so that all Members and all Chancellors could remember how important it is. Nevertheless, the deficit is falling.

I strongly welcome further, fairly modest, efficiency savings in Government Departments. Anyone who has worked in a business knows that each and every business, like every Government Department, can and should constantly be looking to make modest and sensible efficiency savings. The Department in which I have a small involvement, the Ministry of Justice, is looking to deliver 50% savings in its back-office functions while delivering—I think to almost universal applause across the House—an important and, I hope, successful reform agenda in our prisons and justice system. That can and must be done.

We have to remember that we are not primarily reducing the deficit through such savings. By the end of this Parliament, we will be spending more every year than was spent in the last year of the last Parliament, and there was a rise in public sector spending in the last Parliament. The deficit is falling—and it will continue to fall—not primarily through spending cuts, but through increases in tax revenues from a more prosperous and growing economy, which is being delivered by this Government.

When it comes to reducing taxes on business and individuals to the extent we can afford, given the economy we inherited, I strongly welcome the further reductions in corporation tax. In April 2020, it will be extraordinary to have a highly competitive international corporation tax rate of 17%, compared with 28% when the coalition Government took office.

I welcome allowances for new entrepreneurs and those of our constituents who take part in Airbnb, eBay and Uber. They are the vanguard of free enterprise—the hard-working men and women of this country who are going out there, using disruptive technologies, providing good services for consumers and trying to make a living for themselves. They should be, and are being, supported by this Government.

As a Member of Parliament who represents many small market towns, I also welcome changes in small business rate relief. More than 50% of my constituents who are of working age work in small and medium-sized businesses, so that is extremely welcome.

Contrary to comments made by a couple of Opposition Members, I also welcome the reduction in capital gains tax, which was high in this country by international standards. Although it was low for entrepreneurs who made use of, for example, the entrepreneurs’ allowance, it needed to be reduced to make this country competitive. That is not a tax cut for the rich; it is a tax cut to drive investment in small, medium and large businesses in this country, to create jobs for all of our constituents. Some of our competitors—this country’s real competitors —such as Singapore have 0% capital gains tax. This essential change will make sure that we remain a highly competitive country and back the productive parts of our economy, by which I mean not those people who speculate on buy-to-let properties, but those who use their post-tax income to invest in businesses to create the jobs of the future.

On investing in infrastructure, I welcome further investments to drive the productivity that this country desperately needs. In particular, I welcome the major announcement in the Red Book that the Chancellor will bring forward the feasibility study and planning for a major £150 million bypass around Newark. I cannot imagine why anyone would want to bypass Newark—a surprisingly large number of Members have come to know Newark over the past few years—but that will address the appalling gridlock there and make a huge difference to my community. Investment in flood defences is also very important for us in Nottinghamshire, building on previous investments in the past.

Last week I visited a business in Newark that has 1,400 employees and a turnover of £150 million but only one apprentice, so the apprenticeship levy will make all the difference. That company is already planning the way in which it can build on its record and create new apprenticeships, which is highly welcome.

I also welcome the tax break for museums; I played a small part in persuading the Chancellor to do that. It is designed not to help the big national museums in the likes of London, but to give them extra resources and incentives to get out of London and take culture to the regions, provinces and rural areas of the United Kingdom where people of all incomes, particularly disadvantaged people, do not have the same access to arts and culture as those who have the privilege of living in central London. That will make a huge difference in creating the cultural powerhouse that we all want the midlands and the north to be in the future.

I strongly support today’s Budget. It builds on the Chancellor’s very strong track record on the four pillars I have mentioned, and continues to reduce the size of government and to back free enterprise and private businesses to build the jobs and investment of the future.

Local Government: Ethical Procurement

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

I was not intending to speak in this debate, but it has been very interesting to listen to and I would like to add a few brief remarks.

In respect of the comments made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) about the Minister and the press conference at which the announcement was made—or made at least the second time—in the presence of the Prime Minster of Israel, by coincidence I happened to be at that meeting. [Interruption.] Clearly, it was not by sheer coincidence. I was not with the Minister—was what I meant to say—but with a group of MPs and Members of the House of Lords. A cross-party group was sitting in the room, so there were many witnesses of all parties. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield, who otherwise made a sensible case—I do not agree with it, but it was sensible—was wrong in that respect, because various points that he and those who feel strongly in support of the Palestinians would have wished to be raised were raised at that meeting by those present, including by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood). I recall important points about the peace process and specific asks about Gaza and fishing rights being raised, so that should be corrected for the record.

I want to make three brief points. First, the genesis of this debate is the BDS movement, and we should acknowledge that. There are differences of opinion. I think that BDS is unlikely to further the peace process. I personally believe that settlements are extremely unhelpful. I support the British Government’s policy in objecting to them and trying to use any opportunity, such as that meeting with the Israeli Prime Minister, to try to change minds and to further that argument, but I do not think the BDS movement is at all likely to further that argument. In fact, it is likely to be totally counterproductive.

My second point builds on one from another hon. Member, which was in respect of community cohesion. That is a consideration for us as Members of Parliament. Indeed, if I were on a local council, I would like to bear that in mind, but it is worth recognising that the BDS movement has an impact on community cohesion, which is a negative one for many, particularly Israelis living in the United Kingdom and the Jewish community. Not everybody, clearly—that would be an outrageous oversimplification—but a number of those involved in the BDS movement are linked to intolerance and to anti-Semitic behaviour, and they make life extremely unpleasant for Jewish people living in our communities.

I checked on Twitter a few minutes before walking into this debate. One only has to type in “BDS” to see some very unpleasant tweets, including one that actually asked whether my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General was a Jew himself. It said, “Is Hancock an Ashkenazi name, because he would come up with a policy like this?” Such behaviour is totally intolerable and whatever side we on in this debate, we should recognise that and condemn it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I suppose I will start where the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) left off—why we are having this debate. Well, we are having the debate because my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) asked for it, and I congratulate him on that. He spoke with his typical eloquence and knowledge of the situation—eloquence and knowledge that I have been familiar with since I was a teenager listening to his speeches when he came to the Mechanics Institute in Manchester in the mid-’90s.

I have followed my hon. Friend’s career closely ever since. I think I speak for everybody in thanking him for securing the debate, but the reality is that we should not be having the debate in this Chamber; we should be having it in the main Chamber—and not on the initiative of an Opposition Member through the usual processes and channels or as a result of the Backbench Business Committee; I wonder whether the hon. Member for Edinburgh East was hinting at that. We should be having this debate because the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, who announced the policy at the Conservative party conference and then again on a trip to Israel, should have given the House the courtesy of coming to the House, outlining his change in procurement policy and allowing hon. Members to question him.

I entirely appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), who said that there had been a number of changes to procurement policies over the years. I do not doubt that she is right: she is a former Cabinet Office Minister and is very experienced, but other experienced Members know that Members on both sides of the argument have sincerely held views and those experienced Members appreciate that the issues are sensitive. Given that, the Paymaster General should have come to this House to announce the shift in Government policy and allowed us all to question him.

The hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) was lucky enough to be on a delegation with the Paymaster General in Israel. At that time, the Paymaster General may well have been happy to answer questions about what the issue meant for Government policy and for the Palestinians. Well done! We are pleased that the hon. Gentleman got that opportunity, but everybody else in the House should have that opportunity, too. That is why Members on both sides of the Chamber will want to hear the Minister answer a number of questions; it is a pleasure to see him in his place. I will not take up too much time with my remarks, because I know that Members are anxious to hear the Minister’s response. I want to give him ample opportunity to answer satisfactorily the questions of my hon. Friends and colleagues.

[Robert Jenrick]

When I came back from Israel, I assumed that there might be an urgent question in the House on the issue. Did the shadow Minister request an urgent question?

[Jonathan Ashworth]

It is not for me to criticise Mr Speaker and his team of Deputy Speakers on the selection of urgent questions. That is not in order—is it, Mr Streeter?

[Jonathan Ashworth]

But I have a suspicion that Members requested urgent questions.

[Robert Jenrick]

Did you?

[Jonathan Ashworth]

It is not in order to criticise Mr Speaker when he grants or does not grant an urgent question, so far as I am aware.

Enterprise Bill [Lords]

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Burrowes]

I am a lawyer by profession, and I believe that the hon. Gentleman has asked me a leading question. Plainly, the measure was not in the manifesto. Not only that, but the Prime Minister confirmed on 20 April 2015, in the middle of the campaign, in a letter to the “Keep Sunday Special” campaign:

“I can assure you that we have no current plans to relax the Sunday trading laws. We believe that the current system provides a reasonable balance between those who wish to see more opportunity to shop in large stores on a Sunday, and those who would like to see further restrictions.”

That pretty much sums up my position, on which I have been consistent. The Prime Minister appeared to share my position back in April.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

I hope that my hon. Friend knows that I have enormous respect for him and for his campaigns on many issues, on which I have worked with him, but does he not agree that we should just trust our constituents to make up their own minds? In life, we all have to find our own balance, and we are all capable of deciding whether we work or shop on a Sunday. That is not the most complicated decision that our constituents will make in their lives. Will not my hon. Friend trust his constituents to make wise decisions for themselves and their families?

[Mr Burrowes]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s comments, but my colleagues and good friends around me are capable of defending themselves and making their case clearly, just as my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) has done this afternoon. I respect that, but the reality is that we want to provide an opportunity for economic growth and give our high streets the chance to regenerate. The hon. Member for Luton South (Mr Shuker) might want to have a look at the Hansard reports of the Committee stage to see the arguments we had then in more detail.

[Robert Jenrick]

The largest employer in my constituency is Knowhow, of which hon. Members may be aware from ordering TVs and electrical equipment. It is the biggest distributor of electrical equipment from online sales. Those workers—hundreds of my constituents—work on Sundays. How do hon. Members think that they get their deliveries on Monday morning? The Bill will enhance the rights of those workers. When hon. Members go online and order something on Amazon on a Saturday or Sunday, workers in my constituency and across the country will be working and will enjoy the benefits that the Bill will give them.

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes a strong point clearly and highlights another important point. The United States is one of the most observant places in the world on religious matters but it has more freedom than we do, and I am sure that Scottish Members would argue that family values and religious observance have not decreased following liberalisation. People will still be able to choose what they do and, arguably, have more flexibility on Sundays. We have to remember the workers who work six days a week and who want more opportunities when choosing how to spend their time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)]

I rise to speak in support of amendment 19, which I suggest is a workable compromise. As Second Church Estates Commissioner, I met Treasury Ministers to try to understand the reasons why the Government wanted to change the original compromise of the Sunday Trading Act 1994. I was told that there were two principal reasons: first, to address the demise of the high street; and secondly, the need to remain competitive with neighbouring countries, notably France.

Online shopping was cited as the principal cause of the recent demise of the high street, but longer-term competition from out-of-town shopping centres has also caused that demise. I doubt very much that keeping shops open longer on Sundays will stop people shopping online. Anyone who has been shopping with their teenage or young adult children will know that they go to the shops to look, and say, “Mum, we won’t buy it here because there’s an online discount.” Rather like Canute, we will find it very difficult to turn back the tide.

[Robert Jenrick]

Will my right hon. Friend answer the point that I tried to make in a previous intervention? Behind every online transaction, there are tens of thousands of British workers, including in Newark’s Knowhow warehouse. Those people have rights, too. She is standing up for one type of worker and ignoring the fact that tens of thousands, if not more, are working elsewhere behind the scenes.

[Mrs Spelman]

My hon. Friend makes a perfectly valid but separate point. I am addressing the question of whether keeping shops open longer will stop people shopping online; he wants people to have jobs servicing the online industry. As has been pointed out, a number of high street stores are successful in maintaining their high street position and at the same time giving an online offer.

I am prepared to concede that we need to remain competitive as a country, so I asked the British embassy in Paris to give me details of the recent change in French Sunday trading laws. Essentially, my amendment, which I have tabled with the help of the Clerks, seeks to mirror as closely as possible how the French Government have approached the very same question by designating localised tourist zones.

The Macron law—it is named after the Minister who introduced it—extended the number of Sundays for trading in France from five a year to 12 a year. Essentially, it is one Sunday a month. By happy coincidence, it created 12 zones. Six are in Paris, and it might be a welcome distraction to Members to run through where they are: Boulevard Haussmann, Champs-Élysées, Saint-Germain and Montmartre. That gives colleagues a sense of the size of the zones that the French Government identified. There are zones in six other regional cities, including Cannes, Deauville and Nice.

That allowed local government to designate smaller tourist zones, where shops under special licence could open for longer. The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) indirectly asked how the French Government designated tourist zones. The answer to his question is that they collected data on the profile of shoppers who used those zones. Their definition was that the zone should show exceptional attendance by tourists residing abroad. Crucially, those tourist zones do not have wider application, which reduces the negative effects on smaller shops and convenience stores, which we have discussed.

The Olympic park experience is important because, in essence, it is the only practical pilot we have to go on when discussing the likely impact of extended opening. When the practical experience of 2012 was analysed by Oxford Economics, it was ascertained, as Members have pointed out, that small and medium-sized enterprises in up to a two-mile radius from large supermarkets in the area lost over 3% of their weekly sales income. If that is extrapolated to the national scale, it is estimated there would be an annual loss of £870 million in sales for all types of convenience stores and a net loss of 3,270 retail jobs in England and Wales, were longer Sunday trading hours to be made permanent, in line with the experiment during the Olympics.

I have been contacted by local Nisa and SPAR convenience store providers concerned about the implications of these changes on smaller stores. I also share the deeper concerns expressed by my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), the Keep Sunday Special campaign and the Church of England, about the erosion of a general day of leisure on which people can be available for shared activities with friends and family, especially those who build up community spirit and strengthen families.

I have talked to shop workers in large stores who often get their free time in half days on days other than Sunday, when family and friends might not be available. Until today, we have not had a detailed impact assessment, so I tend to agree with the Bishop of St Albans, the lead spokesman in the Church of England on Sunday trading. He said that:

“an increase in opening hours will only lead to more people being pressured into spending Sunday apart from their children and families.”

Short Money

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose]

The allocations of money as per policy development grants are based on recommendations by the independent Electoral Commission, not on Government proposals. I would also point out that we are practicing what we preach, because in previous years the allocation of policy development grants to the Conservative party has been scaled back. We have handed some of that money back, for precisely the reasons that I described earlier about wanting to cut the cost of politics.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

With a national debt of £1.5 trillion, or £24,000 for every man, woman and child in this country, and some Government Departments making heroic efforts to cut back-office functions—the Ministry of Justice is cutting 50% of its back-office functions—what possible signal does it send out to the country and to the civil servants doing those jobs when they see some political parties refusing even to engage with sensible reforms of their own funding?

[John Penrose]

I could not agree more. The general public will not understand why politicians feel that we should be a special case. They will look at and listen to this debate and ask, “Why should these guys think they are in any way deserving of better treatment than people who are on benefits and struggling with their budget? Why should they get a special deal?”

Tax Avoidance and Multinational Companies

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

I know that the hon. Lady was not here at the time, so perhaps she should check my voting record throughout my 18 years in this House. I do not want to keep on repeating this. I wanted both Governments to go further, but an independent assessment has shown that the legislation introduced by the previous Labour Government will drag in 10 times more in tax than the current Government’s legislation, and even then I wanted to go further. We should at least accept the independent assessment that has been made.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

rose—

[John McDonnell]

I am going to press on, because time is short.

I have written to the Competition Commissioner to request a formal investigation of this deal. There was a visible flicker of life from the Chancellor a few days ago. In the pages of Monday’s Financial Times he let it be known that he might, after all, favour country-by-country reporting for multinational corporations. Tax experts and campaigners and I have long argued that this is a vital step towards transparency, and therefore towards fair collection. By revealing in their accounts in which tax jurisdiction their revenues were earned, a proper rate of tax can be applied to multinational companies. If the Chancellor now supports country-by-country reporting, I welcome that. However, the impression was given that even without international agreement the Government would act. Is this the case, or was it just a publicity stunt that has now been dropped?

My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) referred to Bermuda. On the “Andrew Marr Show” on Sunday a senior Google representative revealed that the company has £30 billion of profits resting in Bermuda, a British overseas territory. This is in order to avoid US tax rates. We now know that the Chancellor has been lobbying the EU and instructing his MPs to vote against anti-avoidance measures against Bermuda. It is a disgrace.

It was also revealed last week that Government Ministers have met Google 25 times over the past 18 months. I note that the Prime Minister himself has spoken at Google’s conference not once, but twice. If Ministers are to meet anyone, my advice is that they go and meet the trade union representatives of HMRC staff. With almost half the workforce having been laid off, and with offices having been closed across the country, it is widely known that morale is at rock-bottom, especially with the loss of highly experienced and expert staff. [Interruption.] Madam Deputy Speaker, a reference has just been made to declaring an interest. I have no interest to declare. I think that was a reference to the Public and Commercial Services Union and part of its trade union group. It does not fund the Labour party or my constituency. There is no interest to be declared.

We cannot allow the Government to go on like this. Trust and confidence in our tax system is being undermined. Every pound in tax avoided by these large corporations is a pound taken from the pockets of honest taxpayers. It is also a pound not spent on our schools, our NHS and our police. We need a real tax reform agenda, based on the principle of complete openness and transparency. First, that means, as a start, the publication of the details of this deal in full, so that we and our constituents can judge whether it is fair enough. Secondly, we need real country-by-country reporting of a company’s activities, and not just a secret exchange of information between tax authorities, but full publication so that we can all judge.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

The controlled foreign companies regime was driving business out of the UK, whereas now businesses are looking to locate their headquarters in the UK, and I am pleased about that.

[Robert Jenrick]

The Minister is making a very important point about the diverted profits tax. It is important that Members on both sides of the House recognise that this extremely important development was brought in by this Government, and that it is not correct to say that Labour Members supported it, because at the time, a year ago, their position was that it was not wise to bring it in until the BEPS process was completed, which it still is not. Had we taken the advice of the then shadow Chancellor and shadow Chief Secretary, there would be no diverted profits tax, and the points made by Labour Members would be irrelevant.

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who reminds the House of an important point. When we brought in the diverted profits tax, the intention was clearly to make sure that we got more money being paid in corporation tax. We want to stop companies diverting their profits out of the UK, and we are leading the way in bringing forward legislation on this.

Let me address the shadow Chancellor’s point about resources for HMRC. We have invested heavily in HMRC’s ability to strengthen its anti-evasion and compliance activity, including through extra funding and hiring professionals whose area of expertise is multinational companies. For example, contrary to the impression that he gave, the number of people working in HMRC’s large business directorate has gone up, since it was formed in 2014, from 2,000 to 2,600 people. We believe in competitive taxes—that is why we have cut our rate of corporation tax so that it is the lowest in the G7—but we also believe in making sure that those taxes are paid.

I turn to the issue of transparency raised by several hon. Members. Taxpayer confidentiality is a fundamentally important principle of our tax system, as in the tax systems of every other major economy. We hear complaints that HMRC is not disclosing full details of the settlement. HMRC is prevented by law from disclosing taxpayer information. The resolution of tax disputes, however, is subject to full external scrutiny by the independent National Audit Office, which has reviewed how tax inquiries are concluded by HMRC. In 2012, it appointed a retired High Court judge, Sir Andrew Park, to investigate HMRC’s large business settlement process. Sir Andrew concluded that all the settlements he scrutinised

“were reasonable and the overall outcome for the Exchequer was good.”

I do wish that those who are so keen to accuse HMRC and its staff of sweetheart deals were as keen to look at what happens where independent scrutiny occurs in order to see that in fact there are no sweetheart deals. HMRC introduced—

Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [Lords]

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Monday 1st February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this Second Reading debate.

I was reminded this weekend in my constituency that my constituent, Thomas Smith of Newark, became the first provincial banker when he founded the very first bank outside London, in Nottingham in 1658, called Smith’s Bank. It later expanded to a branch in Newark and one in Retford in the constituency of my neighbour the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann). Several of Thomas Smith’s illustrious ancestors became Governors of the Bank of England, and so those of us who know these geeky facts about Nottinghamshire, including the hon. Gentleman, thought it was fitting that Mark Carney chose to make his first speech as Governor of the Bank of England in Nottingham, and to declare our city and county as the bellwether for the British economy.

In that speech in 2013, which I listened to, Mr Carney committed us all, and particularly the Bank of England, to using all of the tools available to the Bank to secure a sustainable economy for all parts of the country, particularly the regions of the UK. This Bill, in reasonable and modest ways, helps us to refine and improve the toolbox that is in the hands of the Governor of the Bank of England.

From knowing a few people working at the Bank of England or who have worked there in recent years, while I would say it is a good institution of which we should all be proud as members of the United Kingdom, it would be fair to say it has been somewhat inward-looking. If one were being critical, one would say its culture has been stuffy and overly theoretical, and it moves quite slowly, to say the least—although that is not always a bad thing, of course.

I think Mark Carney, as a younger, dynamic Governor, has made a real impact in tackling these cultural concerns when that was appropriate. If I could make any suggestion from my experience and those of acquaintances who have worked at the Bank, it is that it should continue to do as he has tried to do, which is recruit more people with practical experience of life in the financial services sector and the corporate world—those who have worked in banks, law firms or elsewhere, who can provide an essential counterbalance to those who are perhaps overly theoretical and not so practical. With a proper court or governing body—a board as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) rightly said it should be described—this larger and more powerful organisation, enhanced by the structural changes of this Bill, can operate in a much more modern and dynamic way than its predecessor.

I was pleased to hear that Andrew Bailey had been appointed to the FCA, and others have already welcomed that. From my very limited interactions with him, and when he came to Parliament last week to address the all-party parliamentary group on corporate governance, of which I am an officer, I found him to be clever, practical, down to earth, affable, but willing to speak frankly when necessary. He clearly possesses a deep and broad knowledge of the financial services sector, all of which suggests that this has the making of a good appointment. He appears to have done a good job of taking over and improving prudential regulation at the Prudential Regulation Authority.

Having worked as a commercial lawyer, dealing routinely with the old FCA, I know that that organisation and some of its personnel were in a very poor state before these moves, and morale was extremely low. It is still a struggle to recruit and retain the best talent, as my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Marcus Fysh) wisely said, when the rewards are usually, if not always, less than those on the frontline elsewhere in the financial services sector. It is essential that we give all the tools necessary to Andrew Bailey and others to enable them to recruit more talented individuals. It seems, as my hon. Friend said, a wise step in that direction to bring the PRA within the Bank of England because that is inevitably a more attractive institution to work for, be part of and have on one’s CV than any other, perhaps lesser, regulator.

Although the Bill is not revolutionary in content, it continues the work and takes a series of very sensible steps forward. Some have argued today and elsewhere in the press that we should go much further in changing the Bank of England or even re-imagining the role of a central bank in the 21st century. I would caution that the Bank has been subject to a great deal of change in recent years. Although I do not have the exact figures to hand, I imagine, for example, that a staff of around 2,000 has already increased to 3,500 or thereabouts. The challenge of integration—of building a large integrated organisation and of ensuring quality, because quality and standards are ultimately all that matter—is very great, and we should be careful not to give our regulators too much to contend with.

The formalisation of the PRA’s position as part of the Bank therefore seems sensible. It always seemed rather strange that it was merely a subsidiary of the Bank. I did note, and I am sure the Minister and the Treasury have already seen this and decided it makes sense, that whereas previous legislation had deliberately kept the supervisory role then exercised by the FSA separate from the resolution role, the new landscape brings them together. In other words, it used to be believed by the sector and by the Government that it was more appropriate that the organisation supervising a bank should be different from that tasked with resolving whatever problems or mess it got itself into. Presumably the view is that this is no longer necessary, and of course the Bank is capable of handling both sides of the coin.

The proposal in the Bill to provide the Treasury with more information seems logical. After all, whereas the Bank of England provides temporary liquidity and support to a bank in crisis, it is the Treasury and taxpayers who ultimately step in and pick up the tab. These measures are all part of the Government’s laudable efforts to ensure that banks are properly supervised and, to the extent possible, are too big to fail.

The value for money component, which many other Members have mentioned, is welcome. As the Bank becomes more powerful and significantly larger with the advent of the PRA, so it is appropriate that it is open to greater scrutiny. Questions of freedom of information and others will no doubt arise if the Bank’s powers continue to increase.

The Bank of England’s accounts have always seemed to me to be extremely difficult to understand. It always seems to make a profit. I have always been suspicious of that—as a former partner at a law firm once said to me, of course the Bank of England can print its own money!

On the wider questions of openness and governance, I would like to see a greater part of the governance of the Bank drawn from the regions of the UK, not for superficial reasons, but—rather like my opening example of the long-gone world of Thomas and Abel Smith and the Governors of the Bank of England who began their careers in Newark—so that there are experienced voices at the heart of our central bank with direct knowledge of the regional economies, particularly Scotland and Wales.

Finally, on the senior managers regime, a great deal has been said here and, clearly, agreement will not be reached across the House. The position in the Bill seems fair and workable as it continues to put the right pressure on senior managers to be named and to take direct personal responsibility. I am not interested in grandstanding. I am looking for what will have the greatest effect on our financial services sector. The vast majority of my constituents—almost all, I would venture—have never heard of this regime. What they have heard of and what they are expecting of their Member of Parliament is to ensure that there is a financial services sector that is stable, secure and resilient. I believe the Bill is the best way to deliver it.

I welcome the change which the Bill introduces to the pensions regime. Although this aspect has barely been touched on in the debate, the pensions guidance service, Pension Wise, can in future be more widely applied to those looking to take advantage of the great opportunity that was achieved in the previous Parliament to use their annuities in whichever way they see fit. We must not allow one of the great developments in pension reform and other Treasury policies from the previous Parliament to be sullied by mis-selling. One can easily imagine mistakes being made by constituents who, by their own admission, are not always as financially literate as they would wish. This could be, as wiser souls have said, the next great mis-selling scandal.

Although Citizens Advice, which was initially given the difficult task of providing support for members of the public on their pensions, is a superb organisation and I praise those in my constituency who are involved in it, any additional support that we can give through Pension Wise to ensure that our constituents make the right decisions for them at a crucial juncture in their financial lives must be welcomed.

In conclusion, the Bill contains a range of modest and reasonable proposals to further the Government’s aim to provide a stable and resilient financial services sector to secure a successful economy for the United Kingdom. I cannot for the life of me imagine why other Members would vote against it tonight.