Air Passenger Duty

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Drew Hendry]

The hon. Lady makes the point well. This is an exemption based on population density and the regional difficulties in the highlands and islands. Indeed, it should be possible—I hope it is—for the Scottish and UK Governments to work together to solve that problem.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)]

We are.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I was pleased to hear the Minister say from a sedentary position that they are working on that. I hope the UK Government will do so with rather more application than they did on support for the steel sector, of which I had an inside view as a Member of the European Parliament: they made no attempt to secure clearance for the kind of support we saw applied in countries such as Romania, which had been okayed by the European Commission; they asked the Competition Commissioner for exemption only from environmental measures. There was not much application around steel, so I hope we will see a different approach to these matters.

Another concern is the impact of APD on Britons who have family living outside the British Isles. The previous four-banding system meant that such individuals could end up paying more APD than those travelling to the US, for example. None the less, the division in the calculation between short and long-haul travel continues to be criticised by some who feel that that disadvantages Brits with families in, for example, the Caribbean, India, Pakistan or Bangladesh, who need to fly long haul to visit them. One could argue that other, lower carbon alternatives are available to flying for short-haul journeys, which do not apply for travelling long distances. An indication of the Government’s thinking on that would be helpful.

Our final concern is about APD’s impact, or otherwise, on environmental outcomes. In response to a question posed by the hon. Member for Henley, the hon. Member for Belfast East maintained that APD does not have a positive environmental impact. However, we must look at it in the context of enormous public concern around climate change and the increasing significance of emissions from aviation. At APD’s introduction in 1994 and, following that, the Labour Government’s focus on it, there was an attempt to ensure that its design would have a green impact. For example, during the 2007 Budget process it was stated that APD

“plays a valuable role in ensuring that passengers understand and acknowledge the environmental costs of their actions. The resultant behaviour change can deliver significant climate change benefits”.

Those believed benefits were then detailed.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) on securing this debate. I have known him since he and I were elected and have always been fond of him, but I was not expecting a belated Valentine’s day present. I vaguely remember that some time ago the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) presented a giant heart-shaped card to No. 11. I wonder whether the Chancellor’s predecessor regrets not taking the advice on it. Flattery will get you everywhere at the Treasury, so I am grateful for that.

We have had a productive debate and it has been interesting to hear from all sides. There is significant agreement across the House that we view the UK aviation sector as extremely important to our quality of life and for creating jobs, and particularly for connectivity within our United Kingdom and beyond. There is no more important time for us to consider both how we can bring the United Kingdom closer together, and how we can make ourselves more open to the outside world. This is therefore a timely debate. Let me say a few words about APD and aviation in general, and then I will turn to Northern Ireland and try to answer, assuming time allows, many of the reasonable and important points raised. If I cannot do so, I will write to the relevant Members.

The UK aviation sector is a strong performer and we are a world leader in that industry. We have the third largest aviation network in the world, and since 2010 passenger numbers at UK airports have grown by more than 20%. That strength extends across the entire UK, not just at major airports such as Heathrow. Regional airports are growing and handled approximately 113 million passengers last year. There is good news across the sector.

Regional airports have been the basis of this debate. They make a valuable contribution to the growth of local economies and support connectivity across the UK. We appreciate that and want it to continue. We must also appreciate that aviation plays its part—like all industries—in contributing to the Exchequer. We heard various epithets about looking after pennies and not being penny-wiser and pound-poorer, and we appreciate that. The Treasury wants to ensure that we meet our commitments to public services and to continue to address the deficit and the debt.

We also want to pursue policies that will increase economic growth, in which tax has a role. As the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) said, in line with our international treaty commitments, we do not tax commercial aviation fuel and no VAT is charged on airline tickets. It is important that that part of the economy plays its part in funding public services, which was why the Government introduced air passenger duty in 1994. Without that duty, commercial aviation would be relatively undertaxed compared with other industries.

Air passenger duty raises around £3.2 billion a year, which is a significant amount of money. It would be foolish of the Treasury not to take that seriously and to proceed without great caution. That is why we are proceeding with the introduction of a call for evidence, which I will discuss in a moment. We appreciate the arguments that were made eloquently by the hon. Member for Belfast East—those points were also made by Democratic Unionist Members who spoke after him and by many other Members across the House, including those from the north-east, the west country, Wales and Scotland. We are alive to those concerns and I hope I can provide further detail about the steps that we are taking.

We are conscious that APD is often passed on to passengers as part of their ticket fares. This is not a tax on passengers—it is a tax on airlines—but in many cases it feeds through to the cost of tickets. In recent years we have tried to minimise the impact of APD on hard-working families to ensure that those who can afford to pay more do so. Last year we announced that rates will stay frozen for the sixth year in a row for the 80% of passengers who fly short-haul. That will help to keep down the cost of holidays for the vast majority of travellers, including those who travel throughout the United Kingdom for business or other reasons. We have exempted children from APD, which could save a family of four £26 on a short-haul flight and £156 on long-haul flights. Together those actions reduced the burden of APD by about £300 million pounds in the last financial year alone.

We have increased APD on private jets to ensure that those with the deepest pockets pay their fair share, and we are using those proceeds to fund some of the savings for families and holiday travel. I hope Members agree that, alongside those reforms, the Government have demonstrated their strong commitment to the aviation sector more generally, which was exemplified most recently by decisive action to address capacity constraints in the south-east. The new Heathrow expansion will provide capacity for an additional 260,000 flights a year and deliver an extra 16 million long-haul seats for passengers travelling from UK airports by 2040. I hope and believe that it will also be beneficial for all regional airports in the UK, including those in Northern Ireland and Scotland. We heard the Secretary of State’s important commitments on Heathrow and want them delivered. Additional capacity at Heathrow is expected to bring a boost of up to £74 billion to passengers and the wider economy over the next 60 years and we want that delivered at pace.

The Government are not blind to calls from the industry and over the years, including during my relatively brief time as a Minister, we have met a number of airports stakeholders. As a result of discussions with the DUP, we decided to create a call for evidence—I have received and read the representation from the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds) on behalf of his party. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has already visited Northern Ireland to meet stakeholders, including representatives from the airports, so that we can take seriously and listen directly to concerns about APD and VAT.

We are concerned to proceed with care in these matters, first because of the significant amounts of revenue for the Exchequer that are at stake, but also because, as we have heard during this nuanced debate, there are currently complexities regarding EU state aid guidelines. That situation may continue depending on the ultimate agreement that we reach with the European Union—in a moment I will come on to the position in Scotland, where those complexities have come out most vividly in recent months and years.

We keep the matter under review. The call for evidence has now closed. The Chancellor, Treasury officials and I will carefully consider the arguments submitted by many stakeholders in Northern Ireland. We expect to offer a response in the Budget in October or November. I hope we can continue conversations once we have carefully analysed the evidence submitted.

Clearly the tourism industry is important in Northern Ireland, as it is in all parts of the United Kingdom, and we appreciate that the Northern Ireland economy is still in recovery mode and that it requires our wholehearted support to continue to grow. Tourism in Northern Ireland has been growing significantly in recent years, as there is so much to offer there. We appreciate the unique position of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom with respect to economic competitiveness. It is the only part of the Union that shares a land border with another state—the Republic—which poses a number of challenges, one of which relates to airports. Anyone who visits Northern Ireland and understands its economy will appreciate the impact on passenger numbers, business and other passenger choices of the fact that there are other airports within easy driving distance. We shall consider those points carefully in the coming months.

We have read the various reports hon. Members have quoted. We do not necessarily agree with all their findings, but the purpose of the call for evidence that has just closed is to build our own significant evidence base, to enable us to arrive at our own view. It may not be exactly the same view as the independent reports, but we intend to take a detailed, careful decision.

I will deal briefly with other points made in the debate. EU state aid rules, which are relevant to Scotland, have proved complex. As I said from a sedentary position—the hon. Member for Oxford East picked it up—we are working productively with the Scottish Government, which I should like to continue. I would be happy to discuss after the debate or on another occasion how we can step up those efforts. The Government passed the legislation recommended by the Smith commission in 2014 that devolved APD to Scotland. Implementation has been delayed, as the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) described, because it has proved difficult to square the circle as to how the measure would apply to the highlands and islands. I am sure the hon. Gentleman wishes for a settlement to be reached. We shall continue to work closely together and when it is eventually implemented we will bear in mind how it works in other parts of the United Kingdom, including for the airports closest to the Scottish border.

As the hon. Member for Oxford East mentioned, we have in the past looked into the impact of air passenger duty on regional airports in England. There was at that time no consensus about how to proceed. We analysed the various recommendations carefully. There were no easy answers and different airports came up with different and often competing proposals, but we remain open to further suggestions and are in constant conversation, as Members might expect, with airports, stakeholders and Members of Parliament who want to take the matter forward.

As was mentioned in the debate, we have had a discussion with the Welsh Government about the devolution of air passenger duty to Wales. Careful consideration led to the conclusion, which was respected by many if not all the stakeholders, that Cardiff airport was essentially within the same air economy as Bristol airport, and that it was necessary to proceed very carefully before changing the regime for Cardiff in view of the knock-on effect on Bristol. However, we shall continue to think carefully about whether there is a way around that situation. We should not want to harm Bristol inadvertently by creating a competitive advantage for Cardiff.

There are already powers for devolved Governments to take action on route development funds. I appreciate the current difficulties in Northern Ireland in taking that forward, but were the Executive there to resume, they would have the capacity to proceed and implement a route development fund for Northern Ireland. The Government in Wales also have powers to take action because they own Cardiff airport. They could act to develop it further from its current relatively small number of passengers—it is about 1.5 million a year, whereas there are 8 million at Bristol, its nearest competitor.

There is still no easy definition of long and short-haul flights. We have alighted on a definition of a short-haul flight as one where the capital—not necessarily the relevant airport—of the destination country is within 2,000 miles of the UK airport. The effect of that is to take in all European Union countries, plus most Mediterranean-facing countries, with one or two exceptions that are arguably anomalies, such as Israel and Egypt. The vast majority of countries bordering the Mediterranean fall within the definition, and it seems broadly logical. There is no perfect definition.

On the environmental points made, we are interested in treaty obligations. Perhaps there is an opportunity to take action on a multilateral basis. I do not think that that is being pursued today, but I am happy to look into the matter and revert to the hon. Member for Oxford East. As I said, we have taken action against private jets, which are less environmentally friendly and may at times be under-occupied. It has proved complex and difficult to take action on under-occupied flights. HMRC has done significant work on that and no simple solution has been found. Today the duty is paid by airlines, not passengers, so there would need to be significant change to the tax to implement that.

I hope I have answered some of the questions that hon. Members raised. If there are further points, I am happy to discuss them afterwards. I want to leave the hon. Member for Belfast East with my and the Chancellor’s reassurance that, in the months ahead, we will work carefully through the submissions in response to the call for evidence. We will listen to the arguments of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, which appear to have significant support from other parts of the House, and before the Budget we shall present our careful response. In the meantime I shall be happy to discuss the issue further should he or his colleagues want that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

6. What steps he is taking to invest in infrastructure in (a) Witney and (b) Oxfordshire.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)]

Under this Government, investment in infrastructure will reach the highest sustained levels since the 1970s. In respect of Oxfordshire, the Department for Transport and Chiltern Railways have jointly funded a £400 million western section, delivering a new service between Oxford and London Marylebone, and we are of course backing the new Expressway and the east-west railway linking Oxford to Cambridge.

[Robert Courts]

I am grateful for the Minister’s answer, but congestion on the A40 and reliability problems on the Cotswold line make travel a daily challenge for residents of west Oxfordshire. We urgently need upgrades on that line and extra capacity on the road network, particularly the A40. What can Ministers offer through central Government funding to give hope to my constituents?

[Robert Jenrick]

I appreciate that my hon. Friend has been campaigning for such things since before his election. We have provided £35 million for the Oxford Science Transit scheme, which will enhance the A40 between Oxford and Witney. As for the A40 more generally, the Government are providing £150 million through the Oxfordshire housing deal, which he could tap into to see further improvements on that road.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

11. What steps he is taking to invest in infrastructure in Cornwall and the south-west.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)]

The Government are investing in the infrastructure of the south-west. We are investing £2 billion in the strategic road network, including to transform the A303/A30/A358 into an expressway. We are delivering £146 million of investment in Cornish rail and, thanks to my hon. Friend’s efforts, we are investing £79 million in the A30 to St Austell link road.

[Steve Double]

Cornish wages continue to lag around 30% below the national average. The national productivity investment fund is designed specifically to increase wages and living standards; will my hon. Friend tell the House how much of that fund is being spent in Cornwall and the south-west?

[Robert Jenrick]

We are investing significant funds, including £92 million to tackle congestion in the south-west and a portion of a £200 million fund for full fibre, and we are providing £40 million for small and medium-sized enterprises through the British Business Bank, which will go to Cornish small businesses.

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

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

14. What assessment his Department has made of the effect on economic growth of levels of (a) car sales and (b) investment in the car industry.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)]

The automotive sector is an extremely valuable part of the UK economy and we have worked very closely with it in recent years. We have established the first automotive sector deal, and we have backed research and development projects, such as the advanced propulsion centre, with £300 million of investment. Through the future of mobility grand challenge and a succession of Budget measures, we are supporting the development of and transition to low emission and autonomous vehicles.

[Matt Western]

The Chancellor will be well aware of the importance of car sales and manufacturer investment as indicators of economic output and business confidence respectively. In the year to May, car sales were down 7% and truck sales were down 6%. Investment by vehicle manufacturers fell by 55% in 2017 versus 2015, and by 47% in 2018 versus 2017 for the first quarter of the year, so it is on track to be down 75% from three years ago. Does the Chancellor accept that these figures are the reality behind the Foreign Secretary’s assertion—I think this was the phrase—“fudge business”?

[Robert Jenrick]

As I have just described, the automotive sector is extremely important, and few of its businesses are more important than Jaguar Land Rover, which I appreciate is close to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. Car sales in 2017 were actually 25% higher than in 2010 and the UK remains the second biggest car market in Europe after Germany, so there is a great deal to celebrate in the UK automotive sector, and we will continue to support it.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

20. In the light of Brexit, just this morning the British Chambers of Commerce published a list of two dozen vital questions to which British business needs answers, 10 of which are specifically relevant to the car industry. What assessment has the Chancellor made of the potential loss of business investment in the UK car industry as a result of the Government’s failure to provide answers to those questions?

[Robert Jenrick]

We are working closely with the automotive sector, and the Treasury and other Departments have met its representatives on a number of occasions. The Prime Minister has made it clear that our intention throughout the current negotiations is to ensure that EU-UK trade is as frictionless as possible. We will continue to work with the automotive sector to ensure that we deliver a good Brexit deal for it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

T9. Fly-tipping is now a major nuisance to my constituents. The cost of dealing with even a single instance can run to thousands of pounds, and that does not include the cost of investigating for hazardous waste and trying to get prosecutions. Will the Minister consider the case for additional funding to enable my local council of Bromley, as well as other councils, to pay for the battle against environmental criminals?

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)]

Fly-tipping and illegal waste sites are a blight in many parts of the country. The Chancellor announced additional funding in the Budget for enforcement activities. The Environment Secretary recently announced a review of waste crime, and we will follow the results of that closely.

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

T3. As the Ministers on the Treasury Bench know, there are strongly held and differing views about the fairness of the implementation of the Treasury’s 2019 loan charge. Recent media reports have identified the severe impact that this huge retrospective charge is having on the mental health of some contractors, and I have real concerns for their wellbeing. Will the Minister commit to setting up a 24-hour helpline to provide support for individuals caught in this trap?

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

I am not familiar with the project that the hon. Lady mentions, but I will look into it immediately and write to her.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) was inadvertently erased, but I will come to him momentarily—he need not fear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

Dartford has seen over 1,000 new homes built in and around the town during the past 12 months, which is more than anywhere in Kent and one of the highest figures in the country. Does the Minister agree that investment in infrastructure needs to complement those new homes, not wait for several years?

[Robert Jenrick]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why we have created the £4 billion housing infrastructure fund—it is exactly to deal with this problem—and a £600 billion pipeline of new infrastructure projects. He and I have already met to discuss the issues in his constituency, and we will be taking that forward.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Is it possible to provide the funding that our NHS needs and at the same time keep to the reckless tax cuts that the Government announced in their manifesto last year?

Logbook Loans

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Tuesday 12th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) for raising this issue and for the leadership she has shown on it. She has been following it for some time. The constituents and cases that she has raised are very serious. I am grateful for her involvement in the matter.

Like the hon. Lady, we believe that consumer credit plays an important role in society. It helps individuals spread income and costs over time and cope with unexpected financial shocks. However, it is vital that consumers are treated fairly and that we ensure that their interests are protected, particularly in the case of high-cost products, of which logbook loans are an important example. The hon. Lady set out a number of instances where the costs incurred in some logbook loans are egregious. One would have to question whether individuals should take out such loans.

It is worth pointing out that the number of logbook loans has fallen substantially in recent years. They now make up a very small percentage of the wider high-cost credit market. The total value of outstanding logbook loan debt was less than £100 million in 2016, compared with £2.7 billion of debt from payday loans, doorstep lending, and rent-to-own.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

Does the Minister agree with me and Citizens Advice, who fear that the message being sent by not putting the Bill forward will increase and mainstream logbook lending?

[Robert Jenrick]

I hope I can give some explanation over the course of my remarks as to why we have chosen not to proceed with the Bill at the moment. My opening remarks that the market has shrunk considerably is not to diminish the concerns that the hon. Lady has raised about some of those logbook loans. It is important context to the debate, though, that the market appears to be shrinking, at least for the moment.

The number of bills of sale registered at the High Court has fallen from 52,000 in 2014 to around 35,000 in 2016. That compares with 760,000 people taking out a total of 3.6 million payday loans in 2015 alone. Logbook loans remain an important, if small, part of the loan market and are worthy of attention.

In September 2014, the Government asked the Law Commission to examine the Bills of Sale Acts—the legislation that underpins logbook loans. As the hon. Lady set out, those Acts hark back to a long-distant era. There were concerns over stories of consumer exploitation and high levels of interest, and she has given further examples. Those stories include vehicles being seized too readily on default and unwitting third parties buying a vehicle subject to a logbook loan. All of those things are cause for concern. The Law Commission concluded that the Bills of Sale Acts were out of date and recommended that they should be replaced with a new Goods Mortgages Bill. The Government were sympathetic and agreed that the Law Commission should prepare a draft Bill, which it did, consulting on the draft clauses in the summer of 2017.

Separately, in September 2017, the Government, again showing our good faith and desire to progress the matter, consulted on the aims of the Bill and published the consultation response in May 2018. Although the consultation responses undoubtedly showed a degree of concern about the logbook loan market and broad support for the proposed approach set out in the draft Bill, many stakeholders raised significant concerns, which I will discuss in a moment. Overall, there was less agreement on the detail of the draft Bill than we would normally expect following the Law Commission process, and less than we would wish to see before being ready to proceed with it.

Let me set out a few of the concerns from different stakeholders. Consultees suggested that the draft Bill did not do enough to provide clarity for courts, and expressed concern about its requirement for consumers to opt in to the court process, rather than its being the default. Some consultees also said there needed to be more clarity about the circumstances in which a lender could repossess a secured good without requiring a court order—an important issue, to which the hon. Lady alluded. Other consultees highlighted the risk of borrowers exploiting the protections in the draft Bill for fraudulent purposes.

In addition, a number of consultees argued that the draft Bill could encourage lending to vulnerable consumers by making it easier for consumers to grant security over their goods. Access to credit is obviously an important issue to Members on both sides of the House. The Government are determined to ensure that any legislative changes lead to better outcomes for consumers and do not have unintended consequences.

Having given careful thought to the concerns raised in the consultation, we decided that it was not the right moment to take forward the Bill as currently constituted, and that we wanted to give the matter further consideration. In the light of that decision, the Financial Conduct Authority has decided to look more closely at the logbook loan market, and we welcome that. The FCA will use its supervisory and policy tools to assess whether further action is required, including new rules that are necessary to protect consumers.

The hon. Lady has already set out examples of some of the actions that the FCA could choose to consider, at its discretion. The Government believe that at the moment that is a more proportionate approach, given the declining numbers in the logbook loan market and the concerns that were raised in the consultation about the Bill as currently drafted.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

Could the Minister explicitly say what powers the FCA has to protect innocent consumers who buy cars in good faith, who cannot check anywhere whether they are subject to a logbook loan, and yet who can still have them repossessed?

[Robert Jenrick]

That is one of the matters to which the FCA will need to give careful consideration. We hope that it will take that forward. It is also considering, as the hon. Lady suggested, a number of measures with respect to the high-cost credit market. It published an update on 31 May announcing a package of initial measures to tackle problems in the high-cost credit market, including a proposal to cap the cost of rent- to-own.

Those measures show the seriousness with which the FCA is taking the wider issue, and I hope that it will give this issue the consideration that it deserves. The hon. Lady has raised one of a range of issues to which the FCA will need to give careful thought. This is an example of the FCA using the powers that it has been given by the Government to protect consumers. We will continue to work closely with the FCA as it undertakes its review of, more generally, the high-cost credit market and, in particular, the logbook loan market. We will consider whether the Government should take any further action in the light of its findings. This is not the end of the story. We want to give the matter a great deal more thought.

Alongside that, the Government are taking further action to protect borrowers. We are supporting families to build their financial literacy through the Money Advice Service, and £27 million is provided every year through MAS to co-ordinate financial education in schools and to improve the public’s financial capability. A further £49 million was spent in the previous financial year on providing more than 440,000 free-to-client debt advice sessions across the country. We want to continue to look for measures to protect the public and to improve financial literacy and awareness.

I know that the hon. Lady is disappointed by the Government’s decision at this stage. I reassure her that the decision was not taken due to pressures on parliamentary time, although that is always a consideration when introducing legislation. The Government’s primary objective is to ensure that, if we legislate, we do so correctly, and bring in interventions that will protect consumers without unintended consequences. That is why we decided, following the consultation, that the Bill was not yet in the right place.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

4. What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of his Department’s procedure for authorising and monitoring private finance initiative contracts.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)]

The vast majority of PFI projects—86%—were signed off under the last Labour Government. Since 2010, we have reformed the approach so that PF2—private finance 2—contracts, in the selective circumstances in which they are used, now deliver better value for money for the taxpayer, so far delivering over £2 billion of savings.

[Liz Twist]

Recent research from the University of Greenwich suggests that bringing existing PFI contracts back in house could pay for itself within two years. The National Audit Office has noted that Government Departments reported the “operational inflexibility” of PFI, so can the Chancellor explain why his Department is still pushing the increasingly discredited and scandal-ridden PFI model under the disguise of PF2?

[Robert Jenrick]

Under the last Labour Government, the average number of PFI contracts signed per year was 55. In the last two years, the Treasury has signed off none. We will use this approach selectively when it delivers a genuine transfer of risk and provides value for money for the taxpayer, not as the last Labour Government did.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

As the Minister said, PFI was hugely popular under the last Labour Government. Will he confirm whether PFI stands for “private finance initiative” or “pay for indefinitely”?

[Robert Jenrick]

My hon. Friend highlights the cost and legacy of the PFI projects signed off under the last Labour Government. Hon. Members can be assured that we will use this approach wisely and selectively, in particular for the most complex infrastructure projects requiring a transfer of risk and the expertise of the private sector.

[Eleanor Smith (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)]

On PFI hospitals, the National Audit Office report recently found

“no evidence of operational efficiency”,

and that in the NHS,

“the cost of services, like cleaning…hospitals is higher under PFI contracts.”

Will the Chancellor explain why his Government persist with imposing higher costs than necessary on local health budgets instead of ensuring value for money for the taxpayer?

[Robert Jenrick]

I think that the hon. Lady is having amnesia. These contracts—86% of the contracts and 91% by value—were signed under the last Labour Government. In respect of some of the items that she mentioned, such as cleaning and security services, we have reformed PFI contracts under PF2 so that those items are not included in the standard contract.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

Would my hon. Friend be interested to learn that when I was a lowly Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Treasury in 1996 and 1997, John Major was constantly trying to make us finalise PFI contracts, but we in the Treasury refused because they were bad deals? As soon as Labour got in, they went straight ahead and entered into those bad deals.

[Robert Jenrick]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The initial intention of PFI was to transfer risk, when appropriate, to the private sector, and to drive up innovation and quality in a very small number of selective cases. That was perverted under the last Labour Government by Gordon Brown.

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

We have learned from the experience of PFI; this Government—[Interruption.]

[Anneliese Dodds]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

This Government have not. In the light of last week’s report on Carillion, we want to know whether the Minister can indicate which PFI contracts are being delivered by contractors that are deemed to be actually or potentially high risk. Following last week’s reports that failed bidders for PFI contracts will be compensated, can he rule out bailing out firms that fail even to win contracts? We need answers on these questions now, not a history lesson.

[Robert Jenrick]

As I have indicated, this Government’s approach to PFI is entirely different from that of the last Labour Government. The hon. Lady says that she has learnt the lessons. Well, it is a pity for the taxpayer, and for our children and grandchildren, that they were learnt so late.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

5. How many people have paid a 25% withdrawal charge to use their lifetime ISA savings since that scheme was established.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

7. What fiscal steps his Department is taking to increase regional productivity.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)]

The Budget showed our determination to improve productivity, increasing the national productivity investment fund by £8 billion to £31 billion. With substantial investment in the regions of the UK, such as the £1.7 billion transforming cities fund, we want to help all parts of the country achieve their potential.

[Andrew Bowie]

I am sure the House will be united in rejoicing that the UK’s productivity last year grew by 0.7% and in the last quarter increased at its quickest pace in six years. Does my hon. Friend agree that raising our productivity is the only way to deliver higher-paid and better jobs for the future?

[Robert Jenrick]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Raising productivity is the only sustainable way to grow the economy, boost wages and improve living standards, which is why we have given it such a clear and determined focus. With respect to Aberdeenshire, the North sea oil and gas industry is one of those sectors that have seen the greatest productivity increases in recent years. We will continue to support that with a highly competitive tax rate.

[Mike Amesbury]

Given that average UK productivity is 30% below German levels, does the Minister agree it is now time to rebalance our economy and support further devolution for areas such as Cheshire and Warrington?

[Robert Jenrick]

It was of course this Government who one year ago created the Mayors across the UK, including in Greater Manchester, and several of them, including Andy Street, have had a great impact on their local economies. I have had conversations with the leader of the Cheshire and Warrington local enterprise partnership and the Minister responsible at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to take such matters forward.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

23. May I challenge the Government to maintain a strong emphasis on sound management of the public finances so we can invest in skills and apprenticeships to boost productivity and living standards?

[Robert Jenrick]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is only with sound management of the public finances that we can continue to invest in the skills required to grow productivity, and that is exactly what we are doing with increasing investment in apprenticeships, through the apprenticeship levy, and with the T-levels, which will be largest change to our secondary education system since the introduction of A-levels and which we will be seeing in the coming years.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

15. The unique cross-border region of north Wales and Cheshire is one of the most dynamic economies in the United Kingdom. Will the Treasury—which has promised a north Wales growth deal in, I think, at least three Budgets, but has yet to deliver a penny—please stop marking our homework, and give us the freedom to invest in the economy that we believe in?

[Robert Jenrick]

We have had numerous conversations with local partners in north Wales, and with the Welsh Government. I urge the hon. Gentleman to take the message to the Welsh Government, but they also need to engage with the UK Government to secure that important deal, which, as he says, will link the economy of north Wales with the north-west and the northern powerhouse to drive productivity.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that cutting corporation tax to 19% has encouraged business investment, boosting productivity as well as encouraging the creation of 3 million new jobs?

[Robert Jenrick]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When we reduce the tax to 17%, we will see those productivity gains increase—and, contrary to what the Opposition have claimed, revenues have increased.

[Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Eurostat figures show regional inequality in the United Kingdom, measured by output per hour, to be the worst in Europe, and the Government have failed to close the gap since 2010. When will the Chancellor commit himself to making the investment that is needed to end regional imbalances that have seen the north of England set to receive just one fifth of the transport investment per capita in London?

[Robert Jenrick]

The Infrastructure and Projects Authority, which has conducted the most rigorous analysis of Government spending on infrastructure, has made clear that the north of England will receive more funds from the present Government than any other region in the United Kingdom, including London and the south-east.

[Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

8. What fiscal steps he is taking to support firms harnessing new technologies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)]

T5. I welcomed the Treasury’s recently closed consultation on single-use plastics. Will my hon. Friend update the House on what his Department intends to do next to tackle this problem?

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)]

Sadly, it is a rare day on which a Treasury call for evidence on tax stirs the enthusiasm of the general public, but this one has. We received a record 130,000 submissions from throughout the country. We are determined to take the issue seriously and to tackle the scourge of single-use plastics. The Chancellor has been clear that we want to do so in a way that both tackles the environmental issues and drives innovation to support the jobs of the future.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

I am sure that Ministers will be just as concerned as the rest of us about the startling revelations about the conduct of Lloyds and HBOS outlined in the Project Turnbull report. Will the Treasury now demand that, after three years, the Financial Conduct Authority pulls its finger out to expedite its investigation into this matter? Has the Treasury received any requests from police authorities to fund appropriate investigations into criminal activities? If so, will it look favourably on them?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

What will ministers do to support the “Great Western Cities” initiative, which promotes collaboration between Bristol, Newport and Cardiff and has enormous potential for the wider region?

[Robert Jenrick]

We are already engaging with that important initiative. We continue to support the Mayor of the West of England in Bristol, and we are investing over £600 million through the Swansea and Cardiff city deals.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

Manufacturing accounts for 24% of the west midlands economy but, as others pointed out earlier, there are skills shortages. Will the Chancellor therefore support any bid from the Mayor of the West Midlands for a devolution deal to take over responsibility for skills from the Department for Education?

Fuel Laundering

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) for raising an important issue, which I know that he, his constituents, and the effective quartet of Members from Northern Ireland who are here this evening—[Interruption.] Quintet, I do apologise. Who could forget? I know that this is an issue that many people feel strongly about. I know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be delighted to hear that the Democratic Unionist party now wants to be cost neutral, and I will make sure that that is taken into consideration in future conversations.

Fuel duty makes an important contribution to the public finances. In 2016-17, it generated £28 billion, or nearly 5% of total tax revenue. It is the fifth largest source of tax revenue to the Exchequer, behind only income tax, national insurance contributions, VAT and corporation tax, so, as my hon. Friend rightly suggested, this matters. Fuel fraud is not a victimless crime. It deprives the Exchequer of funds that pay for public services, and fuel laundering—the removal of chemical dyes and covert markers from rebated fuel to give the appearance of legitimate road fuel—poses a range of further risks to the public. Criminals experimenting with the process to defeat the new marker can create, as we have seen, a high risk of explosion, fire and potential risk to life. Laundering plants also produce toxic waste, which causes environmental damage. Finally, as we have also seen, illicit fuel is often transported in vehicles that are unfit for purpose and unsafe. As with any form of fraud, fuel fraud is a serious concern, and we recognise that it can be linked to organised crime, serious organised crime and, as my hon. Friend argued, the financing of paramilitary activity. That is a concern across the United Kingdom and, quite obviously, a particular concern in Northern Ireland.

For all those reasons and those set out by my hon. Friend, the Government are and must be committed to tackling the issue and to giving it the due consideration that it deserves. HMRC’s strategy to tackle fuel duty fraud has seen the UK’s tax gap for fuels in general fall from £1.5 billion in 2002 to less than £100 million in 2015-16, but £100 million remains a significant sum of money, as we have heard. In Northern Ireland, where the issue is a particular problem, the illicit market share has, according to HMRC, fallen from 26% to 8% over the same period. None the less, there is no room for complacency. Indeed, there has been a modest increase in laundering plant detections over the past year, which should give us all cause for concern. The new fuel marker that was brought in together with the Republic of Ireland in April 2015 to tackle the problem of fuel laundering is part of the significant investment made by HMRC to ensure that all businesses and individuals contribute to the tax revenues that are required to fund our public services. I appreciate that my hon. Friend has in the past raised objections to Accutrace, but I will return to those shortly.

As outlined in HMRC’s evaluation of Accutrace, the new marker has led to a reduction in the number and size of fuel laundering plans discovered by HMRC, although there has been a modest uptick over the past year. That apparent success reflects our commitment to tackle fuel fraud, as evidenced by the reinvestment of over £1 billion in HMRC’s fight against evasion and fraud over the spending review period. To continue that work, the Government announced the expansion of road fuel testing unit capacity in Northern Ireland in particular, but also in mainland Great Britain, in addition to the extra resource for fuel fraud work within HMRC’s criminal investigation directorate that was announced in the autumn statement 2013. That should complement HMRC’s fleet of road fuel testing vehicles, all of which are equipped with gas analysers that all officers have been fully trained to use. In 2016-17 alone, HMRC took 45,000 samples in the UK, so the problem is being addressed seriously at quite a scale across the UK.

Multi-agency, cross-border co-operation is clearly essential, and HMRC chairs a quarterly multi-agency cross-border fuel fraud group to share intelligence and information on operational activity, as well as co-ordinating joint operations. I have reiterated the importance of that with the Minister of State for Security and Economic Crime in advance of this debate. HMRC’s testing capability can now identify markers down to parts per million, including the new Accutrace marker that has been introduced on both sides of the border. HMRC investigates all attempts to remove Accutrace. To date, HMRC advises that there is nothing to suggest that rebated fuel can successfully be laundered to remove the marker in a way that is not detectable to HMRC. Although all markers have theoretical vulnerabilities and there is no perfect marker on the market, this new marker cannot be removed profitably at any scale. It remains HMRC’s view that the marker has been, and continues to be, effective in driving down fuel fraud. Clearly, I am interested in hearing further evidence from my hon. Friend if he wishes to engage with this. Where HMRC has detected laundering plants, these have not been capable of successfully laundering the new marker.

My hon. Friend raised the question of custodial sentences. Custodial sentences for fuel laundering were handed down in 2016 following a successful HMRC investigation into a £2.6 million fuel laundering scheme. However, the scarcity of custodial sentences for what is clearly a serious crime is noticeable and disappointing. My hon. Friend was right to raise that matter today. Right hon. and hon. Members from Northern Ireland know that justice and policing are devolved matters, but I will give further consideration to this issue and I am happy to engage with them on how we might move forward. I am informed that sentences for this crime in Northern Ireland are, taken together, more lenient than those in England and Wales. We should all give that further consideration.

My hon. Friend mentioned points raised by the Road Haulage Association. I am happy to meet him to discuss these issues at a later date. We have increased our capacity in road fuel testing units, and have provided extra resource for fuel fraud investigations across the United Kingdom, particularly in Northern Ireland. I would be happy to supply further information from HMRC regarding the quantity and where the units are being deployed. I have asked HMRC officials to supply us with better data on the numbers and on the locations at which roadside testing is happening in Northern Ireland. Tests are completed throughout the supply chain. The number of tests at suppliers’ premises in Northern Ireland has increased over the course of the last two financial years.

[Ian Paisley]

I really appreciate the level of engagement that the Minister is offering—both with himself and officials. Will he arrange for the Chancellor also to be engaged in the discussions, so that we can ensure that he appreciates how seriously we want this matter to be addressed?

[Robert Jenrick]

I raised this matter with the Chancellor in advance of this debate, and he would be happy to meet my hon. Friend and his colleagues if they wish to join. I suggest that I arrange a meeting with him and others who wish to participate as soon as possible so that we can take this matter forward. In advance of that meeting I will review some of the other issues that he has raised and the points made by the Road Haulage Association so that we can have the most productive conversation possible. The Chancellor is very aware of the importance of this issue in Northern Ireland and of the assiduous way in which my hon. Friend has pursued it over many years—going back at least five years—by raising it with the Government and in Parliament, so we would be happy to take this matter forward.

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue. We have had a productive debate. I listened closely to the comments that he made and hope that I have been able to answer some of them. The Government are committed to tackling avoidance, evasion and fraud throughout the tax system. For all the reasons that we have heard this evening, this is an important issue that deserves our attention and deserves to be elevated in the level of importance to which HMRC and law enforcement authorities in the whole United Kingdom, but particularly in Northern Ireland, attach to it. I will do everything that I can from my position in the Treasury to ensure that that happens. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and his colleagues to take this matter forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Economies of the UK Islands

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Wednesday 9th May 2018 Westminster Hall

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)]

It is appropriate that you are in the Chair, Mr Rosindell, as you are Parliament’s greatest champion of a different type of island: our overseas territories and Crown dependencies.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Alan Mak) for raising this important issue and for enabling a range of Members from across the House, representing all parts of the United Kingdom, to participate and give a complete tour of the British Isles. One thing we have learned today is that, although the British Isles are a great archipelago of more than 6,000 large and small islands and isles, relatively few of our constituents live on them, and we are perhaps less appreciative of them than we should be. Perhaps more than at any other point in our history, we are disconnected from our coast and our coastal communities. The Government are keen to change that and to ensure coastal communities and islands are properly represented. Today’s debate is an important part of that.

We want to raise productivity, living standards and economic growth in all parts of the United Kingdom, and of course islands and island communities are an essential part of that. Members representing the Isle of Wight, Hayling Island, Orkney and Shetland, Cumbrae, Arran and others have told the stories of their communities, many of which have been very positive. An important part of what we have heard today is that, although living on an island can cause problems, to which the Government, at a national or a local level, must respond, there are also opportunities for economic growth. Wonderful benefits can come from living in communities that are close and, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said, can be very outward-facing to the rest of the world.

We appreciate that the barriers to growth can include a lack of opportunity—which can be a barrier to social mobility—poor connectivity and relatively high costs for transport, public service delivery and goods in the private sector. Although living on an island has many benefits and wonderful opportunities, which anyone who has grown up on one no doubt always lives with, the mainland can exert a strong gravitational pull, particularly to the young, and can at times lead to a drain of talent and youth. However, we have heard today about a number of islands whose populations are rising, which is very positive indeed.

Many of the barriers that island communities face are obviously a natural consequence of their geography and are common to all. Crudely, there are three types of island within the British Isles. The Isle of Wight is unique, in that it has a very large population—more than 130,000 people—and no bridge linking it with the mainland. I will turn to its specific demands in a moment.

The islands in the second category are mostly in Scotland, but there are a few off England, such as the Isles of Scilly. The populations of those islands, such as those represented by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, can still be substantial. They have no bridge to the mainland, and their remoteness poses particular problems, which require solutions, although they have smaller populations than the Isle of Wight.

Third are the islands, such as Hayling Island, that are connected to the mainland by roads. I do not want to diminish the challenges and issues they face, but they have commonalities with rural areas of the United Kingdom that have issues relating to remoteness. They are, to an extent, different from the islands that are separated from the mainland and do not have road links. I will address each of the three types. I apologise that this is a crude way of dissecting the issue, but it is at least a lens through which to look at it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Seely) talked about the challenges and the opportunities of the Isle of Wight, which has a substantial population and no road connection to the mainland. The Government must think carefully about how we can assist it in delivering public services and ensuring its economy continues to grow. With the exception of the Isles of Scilly, it is unique—in England, at least—and we need to think about that when preparing new formulas for schools, local government, policing and other matters. I want to consider that with my hon. Friend in the future. I will talk about some of those issues in the time available to me.

A common thread for the Isle of Wight and all the other islands we have discussed today is digital. Although they are somewhat—at times, very—remote, the opportunities presented by the new economy are huge. They can help us break down some of the barriers and enable those islands to be highly connected to the rest of the world. We heard about new broadband opportunities in Newport, and I am sure there are other examples elsewhere in the British Isles.

We are focused on improving digital infrastructure on the Isle of Wight, in particular. It is clearly a critical part of life today. The Government are investing some £1 billion to ensure our digital infrastructure is fit for the future. I believe that the Isle of Wight was one of the first areas to benefit from the £400 million digital infrastructure investment fund. That was when investors Infracapital channelled some of the allocation into WightFibre to help to roll out full-fibre broadband to more than 50,000 homes, to some of which my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight might have referred in his speech. Alongside that, Infracapital will invest £35 million of its own money to fund the expansion of the company’s infrastructure across the Isle of Wight. That is very positive and shows what we can do working together—although of course there is more work to be done.

On transport, roads are another vital part of the Isle of Wight’s infrastructure. From 2013 the Government will provide up to £477 million to Isle of Wight Council for a highways maintenance project through a private finance initiative that is under way. That will allow the council to carry out vital improvements and maintenance to local roads over a 25-year period.

We also recognise that transport to our islands must be adequate. That was not really touched on in my hon. Friend’s remarks, but having spoken to his predecessor in the past I know of concerns about the Isle of Wight ferry. Such concerns are no doubt common in other islands served by a single ferry company. The Competition and Markets Authority is aware of those concerns, which I expressed in my first meeting with the new CMA chief executive, Andrea Coscelli. The CMA is independent and the decision to take forward any investigation is its alone—the Government have no levers to direct the CMA as to which investigations it should choose, but I have raised the matter with him and know he is fully aware of it.

[Mr Seely]

I did not mention the ferries in my speech because I wanted to talk more broadly about the economy, but the relevant authorities are well aware that I would be keen to call for another investigation. However, I am not doing so at the moment because the new transport board on the Island is trying to work constructively with our ferry companies. I want to give that a chance to work first—for Wightlink, Red Funnel and Hovertravel to work together more closely and to be more supportive of the Island, driving our economy and being part of the solution, rather than part of the problem. That is why nothing is happening at the moment, but there is that option.

[Robert Jenrick]

I thank my hon. Friend for his constructive approach. I suggest that he engage with the CMA if he wishes to take anything forward.

Schools do not fall directly within my remit at the Treasury, but in advance of the debate I reviewed the performance of Isle of Wight schools. I appreciate that in some cases there are some long-standing difficulties. The new national funding formula will help to address that challenge. Under the new formula, the Isle of Wight stands to gain up to 3.2% for its schools, which represents an increase of £2.2 million, or £140 per pupil. Clearly the new formula’s interest in sparsity of population will help in some island cases, but not in all because some islands are relatively densely populated. In certain parts of the Isle of Wight, however, that sparsity provision will help—I believe two primary schools will be eligible for funding in that respect. Certainly the specific challenges of the Isle of Wight need to be considered in future funding formulations.

I shall turn briefly to the comments of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and to those islands that fall into the category of remote, or very remote, and without any of the direct transport links of a road bridge. Clearly, such islands require careful consideration by central Government. We shall work as constructively as possible with the Scottish Government in areas where we can collaborate. When the right hon. Gentleman was in Government, he created the 2014 island framework to encourage the UK Government to work closely with the islands around Scotland. We would like to see such initiatives continue.

The Government also recognise the issues with broadband, and we want to do what we can to assist in Scotland. For example, more than £50 million of the superfast broadband programme went to the Scottish highlands and islands to provide access to download speeds of at least 24 megabits per second. Recently, we announced the winners of phase 1 of the £25 million 5G testbed competition. That includes £4.3 million for the 5G RuralFirst testbed, which will be based primarily in the Orkney Islands.

As far as possible, we continue to support North sea oil and gas through continued Treasury investment, and a strong and stable fiscal framework for the oil and gas industry, most recently with the announcement of the transferable tax history, which has been widely welcomed by the industry. I take on board the comments of the right hon. Gentleman with respect to renewables and the essential role that they play, and will continue to play, in the future of islands such as the Orkneys and Shetlands. I shall take away his suggestion about wave and tidal funding.

Finally, on islands connected to the mainland by road, the most prominent one we heard about today was Hayling Island, which sounded like a wonderful place. I would love to visit the bookshop or the ferry and, on a day like today, we would all like to be on an island such as Hayling. Many of the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant are common in other rural areas elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and we are concerned about them. We are, for example, making further investment in roads. We have launched the large local majors programme, which is potentially transformative for market towns and smaller communities that require significant road investment projects. I encourage my hon. Friend to take that up with the Department for Transport, if applicable.

We are also aware of bank closures, which have been widely debated in the House and are common to a number of communities throughout the United Kingdom, although I appreciate that in islands the effect can be greater than elsewhere. The schools funding formula will help many island communities, as it will in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and we would like to see that taken forward. Since 2012 the coastal communities fund has invested £174 million in projects focused on economic development, growing and regenerating coastal areas. The Isles of Scilly have benefited from the fund, as did the Hayling coastal community team in 2015, from £10,000. Funding round 5 is now open, with £40 million available to spend from April 2019 until the end of March 2021.

[Mr Seely]

Will the Minister give way?

[Robert Jenrick]

In a moment if possible, but I am conscious of time.

I encourage all Members present to take advantage of that fund, where applicable, feeding into it and putting in their applications as soon as possible. From the Treasury’s perspective, I shall continue to work with my colleagues at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government as we proceed to consider what the next stage of the fund will be. I shall ensure that the comments about islands we have heard today are fed into that process. I would like to work with my hon. Friends the Members for Isle of Wight and for Havant to ensure that the next iteration of the fund takes on those views and works for coastal communities.

I thank all colleagues who have attended the debate to discuss these matters. We are very committed to taking this agenda forward and to ensuring that island communities have the funding and support they require to have vibrant communities and economies. Over the course of the year, whether in making decisions about applications to the coastal communities fund or in shaping the UK shared prosperity fund—that is an important discussion to be had in Parliament over the year to come, and I again encourage hon. Members representing coastal communities to take it seriously and engage in it—we shall continue, I hope, to display our commitment to the islands of the British Isles and their communities.

Landfill Tax (Disposals Of Material) Order 2018

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Monday 30th April 2018 General Committees

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the Landfill Tax (Disposals of Material) Order 2018 (S.I. 2018, No. 442).

This statutory instrument builds on changes made to landfill tax for England and Northern Ireland in the Finance Act 2018, which clarified what a taxable disposal is for the purpose of the tax, and extended landfill tax to sites that do not have an environmental permit but should have—in layman’s terms, illegal waste sites. In 2008, the Court of Appeal ruled that some materials received on a landfill site are not waste, and therefore not taxable. Clearly, that has created uncertainty about what constitutes a taxable disposal, and has led to increased complexity for landfill site operators, as well as litigation. The order addresses that uncertainty; it will support the legitimate waste management industry by simplifying the tax system and by providing clarity for legitimate landfill site operators.

The order ensures that, for permitted sites, the scope of the tax will remain unchanged. The changes do not alter the burden of the tax or create any additional administrative requirements. The Finance Act cracks down on illegal waste sites by making it harder for rogue operators to profit from evading landfill tax. That is in direct response to calls from industry to remove the financial advantage that rogue operators have over legitimate businesses. As part of that, HMRC has been given the power to pursue complicit individuals across the supply chain. Not only will those individuals be liable for the tax that will be due on the waste, they could additionally face a penalty of up to 100% of the tax liability. In the most serious cases, individuals could be sent to prison, bringing this criminal behaviour in line with other such activity, such as VAT fraud.

The order goes further; it allows certain materials that are prohibited from permitted landfill sites, such as tyres, to be taxable when they are disposed of at sites that do not have environmental permits or licences in place. That ensures that we do not create an obvious loophole and that we further strengthen HMRC’s position on illegal waste sites.

Landfill tax was introduced with the specific aim of discouraging the disposal of waste to landfill, and to encourage more sustainable ways of managing waste. In that, it has been successful in the years since it was introduced, in 2000. The amount of waste sent to landfill has fallen by over 65% in the UK. Over the same period, recycling rates have jumped from 18% to 44%. But changing the economics of sending waste to landfill has in part resulted in fly-tipping and, on a large scale, illegal waste sites, because rogue individuals and criminals have seized the opportunity to undercut legitimate businesses. We are all aware of the prevalence of those sites in many of our constituencies—mine included—and the impact that they have on local communities and the environment. They are a blight and, at times, a risk to health.

It is becoming increasingly clear that a minority of those sites are a direct consequence of organised crime, which appears to have infiltrated the waste industry. At its most serious, those criminals are linked to other concerning areas of criminality, including the drug trade. We take that extremely seriously, but addressing it will take action from across government. Clearly, there is a role for the tax system to play, and that is why we have made these changes to landfill tax in the Finance Act. They are intended to act as a deterrent to individuals looking to profit from this behaviour at the expense of our local communities.

Building on that, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has taken steps to strengthen the powers of the Environment Agency. In 2017-18, the Environment Agency took 93 successful waste crime prosecutions, resulting in fines totalling in excess of £380,000 and 17 prison sentences. But we must go further. As of this year the Environment Agency has the power to lock the gates of illegal waste sites and block entry, ensuring the prevention of further waste piling up on the sites and increasing all the associated risks to health and the environment.

In the Budget last year, the Chancellor provided the Environment Agency with an additional £30 million specifically to support its work in tackling waste crime, doubling the total provided since 2014. The Environment Agency works with the police and law enforcement agencies to tackle the organised crime element behind much of the problem. We want to see much more aggressive enforcement by the Environment Agency and rogue individuals and criminals brought to book.

The changes implemented by the statutory instrument will help to simplify the tax system and will provide greater clarity and certainty to legitimate landfill operators, but the instrument is only one part of our response to the issue of illegal waste sites, which undercut legitimate businesses, threaten the environment and blight local communities. By making these changes to landfill tax we are taking further steps to tackle the issue. I commend the order to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

I am grateful for the constructive comments by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, and I appreciate his concerns. In fact, I met the Mayor of Greater Manchester recently, who mentioned a site near the hon. Gentleman’s constituency in Gartside Farm. I have a site in my constituency, and several members of the Committee have them in theirs, so that is something shared by hon. Members in all parts of the country. We take the issue seriously, and I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that and is supportive of the measures that we are taking today.

The hon. Gentleman made several points. I do not have the figures for the number of sites to hand, but I am happy to write to him with those. I am advised, however, that the number of illegal waste sites has not increased substantially in recent years. That is not to diminish the fact that there are a large number of them across the country, some of which are deemed by the Environment Agency to be in a state that poses significant risk to the public.

As for monitoring the sites, as I outlined in my opening remarks, we have given the Environment Agency new powers to lock the gates of illegal waste sites and so block entry to ensure that further waste is not piled up, because in most of the more egregious situations the waste takes a number of days, or even weeks, to enter the site. The agency now has more powers.

On funding, so that the Environment Agency can take the action required, as I said the Chancellor has provided the agency with an additional £30 million specifically to support its work in tackling waste crime. That amounts to doubling the total provided since 2014. I work very closely with the Minister responsible at DEFRA, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey). I intend to continue doing so, looking at specific sites, at how we might be able to help and at ensuring that the Environment Agency has the powers and resources it requires. That is a dialogue we intend to continue.

On money laundering, there is increasing evidence that the more severe instances of illegal waste sites are linked to organised crime and at times to serious organised crime. That includes money laundering, which is exactly why we are taking the action in the order—to make it less lucrative, and easier for HMRC to take action against criminals and rogue individuals.

More action can be taken in the area, and we at the Treasury are elevating its importance with our colleagues at the Home Office and with those involved in tackling serious organised crime, to ensure that all parties appreciate that illegal waste sites are an extremely concerning area of activity that has progressed from simply fly-tipping to something that poses significant risk to the public.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

The Minister refers to links to the drugs trade. What did he have in mind when he made that remark?

[Robert Jenrick]

I have met a number of colleagues from across the House who have such sites in their constituencies, and the evidence we have is only anecdotal, but it is that the individuals behind some of the sites appear to be linked to a range of different criminal activities. That is something that the police and the Environment Agency are aware of and following up on, but I have no specific evidence to bring before the Committee. However, that is certainly the view that has been expressed to me by law-enforcement officers across the country when we have looked into such matters.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

While we have the Minister here and on the landfill tax, I wish to make a brief plea for the landfill tax credit scheme. A number of companies have operated the scheme to provide charitable donations for a whole range of causes, which I will not list now: suffice to say that the scheme is extremely important. Each year, in the run-up to the Budget, the Treasury runs the rule over the scheme and has tightened up some of the scheme criteria, which is fair enough. May I make a plea, however, that when the Treasury does so again next year the scheme is maintained, because it does such good work?

[Robert Jenrick]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I will not comment on what may or may not be in a future Budget, but the point he has made is one that has been heard at the Treasury, certainly in the build-up to and after the most recent Budget and previous ones. From my own constituency, I know the good works that the landfill credits do for local community projects. We are certainly very aware of the point he makes, and we will bear it in mind as we approach the Budget.

Question put and agreed to.

Independent Financial Advisers: Regulation

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2018 Westminster Hall

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)]

I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for securing this important debate. I also thank you, Mr Gray, for chairing it.

I am aware that this debate has been prompted by the constituency cases that my hon. Friend has highlighted today—those of Helen and Mr Mohun-Smith. As my hon. Friend will no doubt appreciate, I cannot comment on the specifics of the cases, although it has been extremely useful to listen to and learn from them. I was very concerned to hear the evidence he brought before us today and laid out so clearly and painfully.

Successive Governments have sought to put in place a policy framework for the regulation of the financial advice market, and they have provided the independent Financial Conduct Authority with the powers that it needs to set out the rules for this market and to enforce them to ensure that consumers are treated fairly. It is troubling to hear the issues that my hon. Friend’s constituents have experienced, which suggest either that the framework itself has not been able to give them the protection they deserve or that the FCA has not acted to enforce the rules in the way we would have hoped it would.

Consumers depend on good advice from honest and reliable individuals to manage their life savings properly, to help them make life-changing decisions and to ensure their security in retirement, especially following the implementation of pension freedoms. We want people to access help to make those important decisions, from simple guidance and information to regulated financial advice.

To ensure that the market for financial advice functions effectively, we have to protect people from unscrupulous advisers, and we also have to protect the majority of reputable advisers from those who would do down their industry and their jobs. The independent FCA has set out the rules for the market, and it has been tasked by us to enforce those rules robustly to ensure that consumers are always treated fairly.

Firms and advisers have to be authorised by the FCA, they have to be qualified to provide advice and they have to ensure that such advice is suitable for an individual’s personal circumstances. As in any walk of life, there will always be individuals and firms out there who try to bend the rules or even to commit fraud and other forms of criminal activity. The FCA has the ability to take swift enforcement action to ban individuals firms from providing financial advice, although that does not appear to have happened in the cases that my hon. Friend has mentioned, and I will give thought to the point he made about ongoing re-approval. More action may be required in that regard.

In other cases, advisers might not provide suitable advice, leading to financial loss for consumers. In those cases, consumers can refer to the Financial Ombudsman Service for compensation, which is usually up to a maximum of £150,000 per individual. The advisory firm is then legally required to provide that compensation. Sadly, it is often the case that firms go into liquidation and cannot provide the compensation that individuals deserve. There is then a second tier of protection through the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, which is mainly funded by an annual levy on the financial services industry. Since it was founded, the FSCS has helped millions of people and paid billions of pounds in compensation.

As my hon. Friend mentioned, the current limit for compensation from the FSCS for people who have received bad advice is £50,000 per person. Hon. Members will be pleased to know that the FCA has recently consulted on raising that compensation limit to £85,000, with an intention to introduce the new limit from 1 April 2019. We would strongly support such an increase. A limit of £85,000 would mean that—based on historical data, at least—only 2.5% of claims relating to investments and only 3.8% of claims relating to pensions advice would not have been fully compensated. Clearly, there will be individuals who have invested and lost far greater sums, perhaps including my hon. Friend’s constituents, but the vast majority of consumers would be protected.

Of course, when setting a compensation limit for the FSCS, the FCA has to strike a balance, providing an appropriate level of compensation to enough claimants, without placing an undue burden on the reputable financial advisers and firms that pay the levies—of course, those costs would be passed on in the end to consumers.

That is why it is mandatory for firms to be covered by professional indemnity insurance, which brings us on to another point raised by my hon. Friend. Such insurance should cover many claims, reducing pressure on the FSCS. The FCA published its consultation paper on the FSCS in October 2017, and it is considering whether to go further, to prevent firms from buying professional indemnity insurance that does not allow claims when the policyholder or a related party is insolvent. The FCA will issue a paper on this matter shortly, and we will welcome the decision that it makes.

The FCA has to remain vigilant in cases where firms go into liquidation to avoid paying compensation to consumers before re-forming as “new” firms. Andrew Bailey, the chief executive of the FCA, whom my hon. Friend referred to, has recently said that this practice, which is often called phoenixing, is actively being examined by the FCA and that the FCA is also considering whether the existing rules are sufficient or the creation of new rules is required.

For example, the FCA placed asset sale restrictions on eight advice firms last year in an effort to clamp down on phoenixing. That was done to prevent the common practice of transferring assets that belong to the collapsed firm, including from the client bank, to its former directors, who of course go on to set up a new firm.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for addressing so accurately and so well the points that I made. Is he surprised, as I am, that what he referred to as professional indemnity insurance beyond an insolvency, which is commonly known as run-off cover, is required in many other sectors but not currently in this sector? Is he also surprised that the FCA countenances a situation whereby an adviser it licences as an approved person is able to carry on activities with professional indemnity insurance even though that insurance does not cover the activities they are advising people about?

[Robert Jenrick]

I am surprised by both the points that my hon. Friend has just raised. He and I both worked in professions before coming to this House—I worked as a lawyer, and he worked as an estate agent—and it is surprising that, in the profession of financial adviser, those practices are permitted. I hope that answering such questions will be part of the scope of the FCA’s inquiry and the work that it will subsequently do.

To return to phoenixing, we will work with the FCA to ensure that appropriate rules are in place. I intend to ensure that action is taken in this area. Phoenixing in these circumstances is wrong. It leaves consumers and taxpayers out of pocket and tarnishes the reputation of the industry. Just as with phoenixing in other businesses, these practices can be deeply corrosive to public confidence and to trust in the system, and the effects are, in time, passed on to the whole economy. We want an economy and a society that understand that entrepreneurs and businesspeople can fail—and often do so on the road to later success, wealth, job creation and flourishing new businesses—but those who fail deliberately or recklessly damage our economy and public faith in capitalism, and they must be stopped.

I would like to use this opportunity to raise some additional critical points. The Government have been implementing other policy areas to ensure that we have a better-functioning market for financial advice that benefits consumers. The first of these is the retail distribution review launched in 2006, which drastically altered the current charging market for independent financial advisers, encouraging them to charge set fees and prohibiting them from receiving commission from product providers. That was an important step forward, reducing incentives for advisers to recommend investments in which they had a financial interest, and improving the overall quality of financial advice. It has been welcomed by the sector and those who rely on it.

More recently, under this Government, the Treasury and the FCA launched the financial advice market review in 2015, with the goal of improving the accessibility and affordability of financial advice. Research we have done shows that those with high incomes generally—although not always—have access to quality advice, but those with moderate or low incomes, who arguably have the greatest need, have found decent advice far less accessible. The final report, which we published in March 2016, set out a package of 28 recommendations, which the Government and the FCA have now implemented. Although the recommendations of that review will take time to take effect, we have had encouraging feedback from market participants that the work we have done, which the FCA must now take forward, will make a real difference to consumers, and we are already seeing some tangible results in that respect.

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this discussion on a very important topic here today. I will raise the points he made with Andrew Bailey at the Financial Conduct Authority again—I appreciate that my hon. Friend has already been to see him. I will highlight the cases he has brought to my attention and will ask for further explanations. He does not bring cases to this place lightly. He has a great deal of experience in business. He and the constituents he has talked about deserve answers and actions, and others in his constituency and across the country deserve to be protected.

The issue is not static; the Government and the FCA are committed to ensuring that it remains under constant review. I will urge the FCA to step up its efforts, particularly in respect of phoenixing, which is a wider problem and a challenge for all of us who believe in a free economy and who want to see its reputation protected. Like all Members of this House, I want to see consumers and members of the public protected, and the reputations of those who choose to pursue careers as financial advisers protected, not tarnished by the actions of the few.

Question put and agreed to.

Patient Transport Volunteer Drivers

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Monday 23rd April 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)]

I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for raising an important issue about which I know that he feels strongly—as do others, which is evidenced by the fact that so many Members have stayed in the Chamber to listen and contribute to the debate. Like me, the hon. Gentleman represents a rural area where the distances that constituents must travel to visit doctors, dentists, opticians and hospitals are considerable; in his case, they are very large indeed, perhaps larger than those in any other constituency. I know that he raised this issue during his time at Holyrood —I have seen the questions that he asked and the answers that he received—and I am glad that he has had the opportunity to raise it again in the House of Commons.

The Government greatly value the significant contribution of members of the public who, as volunteers, support others up and down the country. We recognise that those who provide transport, particularly in rural areas, enable vulnerable people, such as the elderly and those without cars, to have the access to appointments or treatment that would otherwise be very challenging, very expensive, or both. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), it is not simply a question of practicality; it is also a question of the care, the kindness and the company that the volunteers give to others. I have seen that myself when I have volunteered once or twice with my own local voluntary transport scheme in Nottinghamshire.

I pay tribute on behalf of the Government to both the individuals and the voluntary transport schemes. The volunteers who staff many of these schemes make them possible. In my constituency, we benefit from a superb scheme run by Lucy Fountain in Newark, who I have got to know and respect enormously. I believe that, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross says, the Government do and must play a role in ensuring that the schemes continue, that volunteers are respected for the time and commitment they put in, and that they are not at any financial disadvantage.

As a Treasury, we need to consider carefully the barriers standing in the way of people doing this work—I believe that we have done that, but I hope we will continue to do so. Tonight, I am very happy to outline where we stand and the work we have done in recent years, but I also accept the suggestion of a meeting to take these matters forward.

It is right that the tax system should allow volunteers to be reimbursed for their reasonable expenses and it must be the principle that wherever possible volunteers are not left out of pocket. Organisations are free to reimburse volunteers at whatever rate they choose but, to make it easier for volunteer drivers and to create simplicity in how one is reimbursed for the miles driven, the Government allow organisations to make approved mileage allowance payments, or AMAPs. Payments within the AMAPs scheme do not incur a liability to tax, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross explained.

The scheme covers reasonable costs associated with using a private car for business miles or voluntary work and the approved rates, as we have heard, are set at 45p per mile for the first 10,000 miles and 25p thereafter. The reason for the higher rate for the first 10,000 miles has always been to reflect the fixed and variable costs associated with operating a car. No matter how small the number of miles driven, motorists will of course always be liable to pay for insurance, servicing the vehicle and purchasing a new one in due course. In general, that means that when driving a shorter distance the overall cost per mile is higher than when those fixed costs are spread over a greater number of miles. Drivers carrying passengers can also claim an additional 5p per mile per passenger. For volunteer drivers, of course, this is particularly relevant, but it is also designed to incentivise people to take part in drive to work schemes and so on. If a driver is travelling with one passenger, 50p per mile could be paid tax-free for the first 10,000 miles. It should be stressed that 50p is only the maximum outlined by the Government. Many voluntary transport schemes choose, at their discretion, to offer a lower sum. My own in Nottinghamshire offers 42p per mile, so there are questions of variations across the country that are outside the control of the Government.

Volunteers are also afforded one further preferential treatment. Unlike for employees, the reimbursement of a volunteer’s travel expenses covers them from home to the place of voluntary work. When one is travelling from one’s home to pick up a patient in their home, all of that journey is reimbursed. This can be considerable. However hard voluntary transport schemes like my own try to match the patient with the volunteer, the distances in a constituency such as the hon. Gentleman’s can be very large, so that preferential treatment is important.

Seen in the whole, we think that the current rates represent a fair allowance for the vast majority, ensuring that volunteer drivers are not left out of pocket. The system is designed to be simple and clear, as volunteers are required only to record their annual mileage rather than to keep any other motoring records or expenses. As the hon. Gentleman said, such a requirement would be too onerous for volunteers. It has to be said that the vast majority of volunteers do not exceed 10,000 miles of volunteer driving, but I appreciate that regional variations exist.

To take an example from England for context, a QualityWatch report found that only 3% of emergency admissions travelled more than 30 km to a hospital, with an average distance of just under 9 km. Preparing for this debate, I asked my own voluntary transport scheme. It covers a rural area—far less rural than the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, but an area where hospitals are 20 to 30 miles away from the principal town. I appreciate that that is only a fraction of the distances he described. The average mileage for a volunteer driver in that rural area was 4,000 miles a year, and the busiest driver last year completed 9,000 miles. I do not want to dismiss those individuals who drive more than 10,000 miles. I am sure there are some, and the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members from the highlands of Scotland have mentioned some of them—

--- Later in debate ---

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mike Freer.)

[Robert Jenrick]

As I was saying, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is correct and that there are individuals who travel more than 10,000 miles a year. We have to recognise that, by definition, these are the most active and the most public-spirited members of the public. They are giving up enormous amounts of time; they are almost professional volunteers, given the amount of time they are willing to give up. Their generosity should be provided for and their costs reimbursed wherever possible.

[Douglas Ross]

We are focusing in this debate on volunteer drivers, but will the Minister also take this opportunity to acknowledge that there are others in our communities who help? For example, Keith Cancer Link, which was established 35 years ago in Moray, raises money to pay for taxis to take people from Keith to Aberdeen and Elgin for their treatments. It is right that we highlight what the drivers do, but we should also highlight what others in our constituencies do to help.

[Robert Jenrick]

I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend. There is a range of schemes across the country, particularly in the rural areas that most of the hon. Members here tonight represent. They include volunteer driver schemes and community bus schemes, as well as schemes run by the whole range of charities supporting hospitals and healthcare across the country.

Returning to the question of those travelling more than 10,000 miles a year, I am pleased to report to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross that there is provision for them, but it is slightly different from what he has outlined this evening. HMRC allows individuals to claim their actual costs if they travel more than 10,000 miles—or indeed any mileage—at the discretion of the individual or the community transport scheme. Those who travel particularly long distances and feel that the rates do not cover their costs should ask their community transport scheme for the actual costs of their motoring. The individual will need to keep records to show that no taxable profit has been made, but there is no need for them to make any declaration to HMRC or to include the information on a tax return unless they make a profit, which presumably they do not.

I would encourage the hon. Gentleman’s constituents to consider asking the organisations they volunteer for to reimburse their actual costs, if they feel that that would more accurately reflect the costs of their motoring. The organisations might wish to do so, at their discretion, for the small number of volunteers who exceed 10,000 miles. I do not doubt that some individuals will fall into that category, and that in some parts of the country, such as his own, there will be a considerable number. There is an opportunity for them to do this with relatively little burden on themselves. It will certainly not involve the level of reporting that he thought would be required. To ensure that all those who use AMAPs understand their entitlement, HMRC last week published new guidance relating specifically to volunteer drivers, which includes the point that I have just made. We hope that it will provide a useful resource, and I will place a copy of it in the Library of the House.

To conclude, I again thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. I should also like to thank the volunteer drivers across the country who play such a valuable role in many of our communities, particularly in the rural parts of the United Kingdom. I have listened closely to his comments, and to those made by others who have spoken in the debate tonight, and I would be more than happy to continue the conversation in a meeting with him and any other rural Members who would like to join in. As with all taxes, the Treasury keeps the AMAPs system under review, to ensure that it continues to be fit for purpose and to achieve its stated aim. I am happy to do that again, as I am sure the Chancellor will do as we approach the Budget in November.

As I have set out this evening, we believe that the current system is fair and consistent for the majority. For the small number who go the extra mile and who travel more than 10,000 miles, there is that additional system under which they can claim their actual costs with only a relatively low burden to themselves and the organisations they volunteer for. I hope that the guidance published at my request on Friday by HMRC will provide further clarity, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman looks at it. I am happy to provide it to him. If he has comments or concerns about it, we can discuss them in the conversation that I hope we will have in the coming weeks. I hope this has been helpful, and I look forward to continuing this conversation and to ensuring that volunteer drivers across the country are properly respected and reimbursed for the important contribution that they make.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)]

5. What steps he is taking to invest in the infrastructure of small and medium-sized cities.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)]

In this Parliament, investment, including in infrastructure, will be at its highest sustained level since the 1970s, and our cities large and small are an important part of that strategy. We recently launched the £1.7 billion Transforming Cities fund to upgrade infrastructure, in addition to £345 million of funding for local road projects in England.

[Jack Brereton]

I thank the Minister for his response and for meeting me recently. Does he agree that cities such as Stoke-on-Trent are perfectly placed to benefit from investment through the Transforming Cities fund?

[Robert Jenrick]

I quite agree: Stoke-on-Trent is exactly the kind of city that we designed the Transforming Cities fund to benefit. From the meeting we had, I know that my hon. Friend sees opportunity in Stoke—in Stoke station, at junction 15 on the M6 and in the proposal for a ceramics park. With the dynamic Conservative leadership in Stoke at the moment, we look forward to receiving that application.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

I do not often get angry in the Chamber, but can I ask the Minister to stop spending his time in Maidenhead and Runnymede and come to the real towns and cities of this country like Huddersfield, where we can see the deterioration of infrastructure everywhere we look? That is because this Government have cut and cut local authority spending—that is the truth. He should get out more and see what this country is really like.

[Robert Jenrick]

The independent Infrastructure and Projects Authority has said that by the end of this Parliament, central Government funding for infrastructure will be greater in the north than in the south. The hon. Gentleman is speaking to the wrong Minister if he thinks that we do not care about the north. This son of a Liverpudlian and a Mancunian, born in Wolverhampton and representing North Nottinghamshire, needs no lessons from him.

[Mr Speaker]

I accept that Huddersfield is a most admirable place. My grandma lived there all her life, as I have told the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) before. Splendid place, splendid woman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

Cities are important, but so too are seaside towns such as Weymouth. We desperately need investment in those places, or they will just go to rack and ruin. Having met a Minister from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government recently, I understand that Government are looking at initiatives for towns and seaside towns. Can the Minister confirm that that is true? If so, what money will be available?

[Robert Jenrick]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. The Government’s strategy is not limited to cities. The Transforming Cities programme is for our smaller and larger cities, but we are also interested in coastal towns and communities. I recently met a number of parliamentary colleagues representing those communities, and I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to talk about how the Treasury will be working with CLG.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does the Minister accept that as we leave the EU, many people across the United Kingdom will want to see economic development beyond the south-east of England, and that enterprise zones such as the one in my constituency could be used to maximise inward investment and produce productivity and prosperity for everyone across the UK?

[Robert Jenrick]

I entirely agree. That is why we are working with Mayors such as the Mayor of Tees Valley, who is producing a development corporation and has new powers of planning reform and so on to drive forward the economy of that part of the north-east. We are very happy to talk to other hon. Members who would like to take forward similar proposals.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

6. How much his Department has spent on preparing for the possibility of no deal with the EU when the UK leaves the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

12. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on ensuring that people have high-tech skills to increase productivity.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)]

The Government are working across Departments to help to prepare businesses and working people to seize the opportunities that technology will bring. At the Budget we announced, among other measures, a trebling of fully qualified computer science teachers, the creation of a T-level in digital skills and the retraining partnership that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has spoken about.

[John Howell]

What steps are the Government taking to make sure that these skills are widely available?

[Robert Jenrick]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are trying to roll out our changes in apprenticeships, T-levels and other matters as quickly as possible across the country. We commissioned the Juergen Maier “Made Smarter” review to increase the adoption of digital technology in businesses—particularly small and medium-sized enterprises—and we will follow up on that in the months to come.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

The circular economy has the potential to create hundreds of thousands of jobs in this country. What discussions has the Minister had with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about how we can maximise these opportunities?

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Lady raises an important point. We are working closely with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced a call for evidence on single-use plastics in the spring statement. We intend to make proposals in due course.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

13. What comparative assessment he has made of the size of the national debt (a) today and (b) 12 months ago.