Planning for the Future

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Robert Jenrick

Thursday 12th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

The new affordable homes programme, which we announced yesterday, will be over £12 billion. We have not yet finalised the details, but will set them out shortly. They will show the proportion of those homes that will be for different tenures, from shared ownership and affordable rent to social rent. We want a significant increase in the number of those homes in the social rent category. I hope we can make a positive announcement on that shortly, when we have finalised the details, having spoken to and listened to the sector.

I am very sympathetic to the argument that my hon. Friend has made in the past about properties that are not eligible for right to buy and, indeed, about some councils and housing associations that are making it more difficult. I would like to work with him to take action on that. We need to ensure that the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, takes housing seriously. As I have said before, we will never be able to meet our housing targets and ambitions as a country unless London pulls its weight, and I am afraid that at the moment we have a Mayor whose ambitions are way below what we should all be expecting at every level of the market. As long as he continues in place, which I hope is not for very much longer, the Mayor needs to get building in London.

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

The Secretary of State has just been talking about the delivery of homes for social rent, but I would like to ask him about the impact of two of his Government’s policies on the delivery of homes for social rent. The first is yesterday’s changes to the Public Works Loan Board when it comes to the delivery of homes for social rent by local housing companies. The second is the First Homes policy, which, because it is delivered through section 106 as it is currently designed, is likely to lead to a reduction in the production of homes for social rent by local councils. What is his response?

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Lady will know as a follower of Treasury matters that what we announced yesterday in the Budget with reform of the Public Works Loan Board makes it cheaper for councils to borrow to invest in housing and regeneration. I hope that she will support the changes that we made. The changes we are making to the PWLB will make it harder for councils to waste money on speculative investments outside of their boundaries and get highly indebted, and make it easier to spend money on things that really matter. We have lifted the housing revenue account borrowing cap, and many councils across the country are responding to that and building council houses at a pace that we have not seen for many years, as was reflected in the statistics I gave earlier. We built more council houses last year than we have done for many years, and I hope that her local council in Oxford will do the same, if that is what she wishes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Robert Jenrick

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: there are disparities of income and productivity across the United Kingdom, and what he mentions will be one of the key objectives. But the shared prosperity fund is not our only intervention in this area: we are taking a range of measures, including significantly increasing the amount of public investment in infrastructure—to the highest levels in this country since the 1970s.

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

Despite pledges that the Government would provide details on the shared prosperity fund by the end of last year, the Chancellor has been silent on how much communities could lose from the £17 billion-worth of structural funds. The Chancellor has only now woken up to the danger, splurging nearly £10 billion, almost half that amount, on tax cuts for the well off—as advocated, of course, by the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson). Surely the only shared prosperity under the Conservatives is for those who are already well off.

[Robert Jenrick]

Clearly, it is not possible to progress this matter until we have greater certainty about our exit from the European Union. Those Members of this House who want to see this matter progressed should be voting to leave at every opportunity, as we on the Government side have done. The important thing to point out on regional disparities is that this Government are investing far more than the previous Labour Government. In fact, £430 million a week more in real terms is being invested by this Government than under the previous Labour Government on infrastructure in all parts of the UK.

National Insurance Contributions (Termination Awards and Sporting Testimonials) Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Robert Jenrick

Tuesday 14th May 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Robert Jenrick]

Let me respond to as many of those points as possible. We have had a discussion of the impact of these measures on charities. Without repeating myself too much, we expect this to have a minimal impact. Where the sporting testimonial committee and the sportsperson make use of payroll giving, there would be no impact whatsoever. Were an individual to receive the money themselves and then pay tax and take advantage of gift aid, there would be a different tax treatment. Obviously, that would be the choice of the individual. The sportsperson and the sporting testimonial committee could and should choose to use payroll giving, which is a very generous and unlimited relief.

The hon. Member for Oxford East queried whether the measure would create a new bureaucratic impact on testimonial committees. It should not create any more impact than is already in place because we have already legislated for this from an income tax perspective; that is on the statute book. If a sportsperson wanted to use payroll giving today to avoid the income tax liability and ensure that the greatest possible amount of money went to the charity, the sporting testimonial committee today would already have to register for payroll giving, which they would then be able to use a second time for income tax and for the employer’s national insurance liability. This measure does not add bureaucracy. One could argue about the measure that has already been legislated for, but that is already on the statute book and the level of bureaucracy involved is pretty low.

We have had another debate around the definition of customary or non-customary sporting testimonial. The hon. Lady has already used her lunch break to root out the guidance, in her usual assiduous manner. If Members look at it, they will see that it is thorough. It is several pages long and goes into a degree of detail. I am happy to circulate it to other members of the Committee. It sets out that while the concept of “customary” is not defined in legislation, it has its ordinary, everyday meaning. The guidance says that in general, “customary” means a practice that is recognisable as the norm and where a failure to observe it would be exceptional. I think that is pretty clear. That suggests that if it is normal practice, a sportsperson would have a legitimate expectation of that as part of their employment at the club, and if the sportsperson did not receive the testimonial that they were expecting, that would be an exceptional occurrence.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful for that explanation, but I am sure the Minister will recall that in the expert evidence session, note was taken of the fact that the scope of that norm is not clearly indicated. One could look at the norm for a whole sport, the norm for a particular club, the norm for one year, and so on. Does he accept the need for greater clarity in the guidelines about what the norm is defined with reference to?

[Robert Jenrick]

I am happy to review the guidance and see whether we can give more examples. There are a number of examples within the guidance on a range of different issues, but if it would be helpful to give one or two examples on this specific issue, I am happy to do so. Without sounding as though I am not giving serious consideration to the issue, it is worth restating that this has not arisen as an active issue. Sporting bodies, sportspeople and sporting testimonial committees have not raised it. The practice is of long standing; it dates back to 1927. We legislated for it from an income tax perspective two years ago, and we have not had any adverse feedback since then.

[Anneliese Dodds]

Playing devil’s advocate, the whole point surely is that under the rules, if a testimonial is customary, the tax is payable. Therefore, if there is any ambiguity, one would not necessarily want to go stirring hornets’ nests to try to resolve that. Surely the Minister understands what I am trying to get at: the bias would surely be towards not seeking advice, rather than going out of one’s way to have the joy of paying tax.

[Robert Jenrick]

I understand that, although those sporting testimonial committees would want a degree of certainty that they were following the law, particularly if large sums of money were involved. They might seek the guidance of sporting bodies, or HMRC, perhaps on an anonymous basis, and that does not appear to have occurred.

Earlier in the day, the hon. Lady asked whether the customary test is specific or exclusive to sporting testimonials or whether it has a wider basis in law. There are other examples of the use of the customary test in tax law and case law, one being employer accommodation, where two factors are taken into account: first, how long the practice had existed, and secondly, whether it had achieved general acceptance with the relevant employers. There is therefore a history, as we have already described. I am happy to take away from today’s debate that we will review the guidance and ensure that there is a sufficient number of examples to provide clarity, should anyone require it, although it is not our experience that individuals have requested further clarification in the past.

The hon. Lady also questioned the wider point about the impact on different sports, which is one of the objectives of new clause 5. HMRC has announced that testimonials for sports other than football are all likely to be unaffected, as they are likely to be below the threshold. The measure is most likely to impact footballing testimonials. As I said earlier, the average testimonial, to the best of our knowledge, is around £72,000 a year and is therefore unaffected by the measure.

Without repeating myself, we have consulted many of the sporting bodies, and in fact, I met some of them. It is worth restating that in this instance, sporting bodies expressed a legitimate concern that the proposed threshold of £50,000 was too low. The Treasury responded by not just increasing it, but doubling it to £100,000. We have to be careful not to create unfairness for other members of society and taxpayers in the way that their payments are treated at the end of their career, or when one occupation ends and they unfortunately have to move on to another.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North asked this morning, and again this afternoon, why there is a difference in language between part 1 and part 2 of the Bill. My experts at HMRC have looked into that, and the difference in language between the legislation for termination awards and sporting testimonials is accounted for as follows. First, in respect of termination awards, it is a charge on the employer. Secondly, termination awards are treated as earnings of the employment. Thirdly, the liability in respect of sporting testimonials is a charge on a third-party controller of a testimonial. Fourthly, there is no link between sportspeople and the testimonial committee. Fifthly, general earnings include earnings from the employment and any amount treated as earnings in, for example, the testimonial payment. I hope that provides some explanation. If the hon. Lady would like further information, I am happy to write to her and the Committee.

The hon. Lady also questioned the amount of revenue that is likely to be raised from the measure. We have said that it is negligible, which means, in the terminology of the Treasury and the OBR, less than £3 million per annum; but in all likelihood, it will raise significantly less than that. When we modelled it prior to doubling the threshold from £50,000 to £100,000 it was also negligible—less than £3 million a year—so it is likely to be closer to zero than to £3 million, now that the threshold has doubled. Once again, our motivation in introducing the measure is to clean up, and provide certainty and clarity to individuals and those organising such matches, rather than to raise revenue.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to the Minister for that. Is he implying, therefore, that there would be a significant behaviour change as a result of the measure? Surely, otherwise there would not be zero income resultant from it.

[Robert Jenrick]

No—with respect, I did not say that there would be zero income. I said that within the spectrum of zero to £3 million, the likely amount of revenue raised would be closer to zero than to £3 million. The sums involved are very low—negligible, in our terminology—so I do not have more precise figures, but it helps to give some guidance that it is unlikely to be closer to £3 million. Clearly, the vast majority of testimonials will be excluded, and will be below the £3 million level. I hope that I have been able to allay some of the concerns, and that the amendments will not be pressed.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Extent, commencement and short title

Draft Payment Accounts (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Robert Jenrick

Wednesday 19th December 2018 General Committees

[Robert Jenrick]

Well, let me answer the questions asked by the hon. Member for Oxford East. She mentioned the gap in reporting between exit day and 2022. That is because the Money Advice Service reports to the Treasury, which then reports to the European Commission, and it is that provision that is deficient. I assure the hon. Lady that there are no changes to the requirement for the Money Advice Service to host a price comparison website—that has already been launched—so to answer the question that she perfectly understably asked, there should not be an issue.

There is no reduction in the requirement for transparency on fees. The only change is that the FCA is taking over responsibility for the regulation of the documents from the European Banking Authority. We have of course worked with the FCA, so I can say in answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow Central that it is willing and ready to take on those responsibilities.

On the wider question about UK citizens living in the EU27, we expect the number of individuals affected by the measure to be very small. We have had conversations with banks on the arrangements that we will put in place; the hon. Member for Oxford East mentioned the subject. It is worth remembering, as I said in my opening remarks, that any individual legally resident in an EU27 country will have the right, under EU law, to access a basic bank account in that country. If they had been using their basic bank account from the United Kingdom solely, and then no longer had access to that—an unlikely scenario, and one that would affect a very small number of individuals—they could, as of right, open a basic bank account in the country in which they are legally resident. We see no reason why they would not be able to do that.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation, but surely the question is not whether certain people would become completely unbanked as a result of the changes, but whether they could still carry out the kind of transactions that are very difficult to do, in whatever country, unless one has a domestic bank account. If one does not, it can be very difficult to pay certain kinds of bills and make certain kinds of transactions and so on—and there are normally additional charges involved.

[Robert Jenrick]

Those people would be able to open a bank account in the UK at the commercial discretion of a UK bank. We do not think there will be many, if any, examples of individuals having their bank account withdrawn, but of course it is technically possible that a bank might choose to do that. We think it is unlikely that these individuals would continue to use their UK-based bank account as their sole current account. If, say, a Spanish student came to study in the United Kingdom, opened a UK basic bank account and then returned to Spain, it would be a costly bank account for them to continue to use as their current account, because they would have to pay currency charges whenever they transferred money. The situation that the hon. Lady alludes to would apply only in a limited number of circumstances. I take her point that there could be such circumstances, but we do not think there will be a substantial number.

It is worth remembering that our duty in this instance—I am sure the hon. Lady would support this—is to maintain equivalence, not make policy changes. We are ensuring that any individual resident in the UK will have access to a basic bank account, but we are not making a change to ensure that UK citizens resident in third countries can have access to a UK basic bank account; that would be a policy change, because it would of course be applicable beyond the EU27 to any country in the world in which a UK citizen might choose to reside. I hope that she is reassured that our intention is to act within the confines of the law—not to go beyond it and take action that might apply to a British citizen resident in, for example, Canada or the United States who wished to maintain or open a UK basic bank account.

The hon. Lady also asked a question about consumer organisations and industry consultation. In drafting the statutory instrument, the Treasury engaged confidentially with industry representatives to make them aware of these changes, and to allow them the opportunity to comment on any of them. We have not received any queries or comments on the proposed changes from those groups, or from any consumer groups, since publication, so we can only assume that they are content, but of course we will continue to work, and to be open to comments, should any come forward in the weeks and months ahead.

I think that I have answered most of the questions posed by the—

[Anneliese Dodds]

The Minister is being very generous with his time. I believe that I asked when the impact assessment would be forthcoming.

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and I will come on to that as my final comment. First, I will answer what I think was the final comment from the hon. Member for Glasgow Central, in respect of potential discrimination against EU nationals resident in the UK. What she suggests is not the case under this statutory instrument. Any resident of the United Kingdom who is legally resident in the United Kingdom will have access to a basic bank account, just as they would if they were living elsewhere in the EU.

Finance (No. 3) Bill (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Robert Jenrick

Thursday 6th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to the Minister for being willing to give way. He will probably remember that I asked for the concrete ways in which Government are engaging with international partners around that convention. I have not received any concrete details aside from the general aspiration to change things. Can he provide some details now?

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Lady and I discussed this in a Westminster Hall debate earlier in the year. I believe I wrote to her afterwards to set this out, but perhaps she was not satisfied with the response. I am happy to revert to her with more information, but I made the point in that letter that the UK Government are committed to this, and we play a leading role internationally in discussing the future of the Chicago convention. As I also set out in the letter, several of the leading aviation nations—including the United States and Australia—have limited interest in changing the current regime, which makes it rather difficult to make the kind of progress that I suspect she would like us to make.

[Anneliese Dodds]

The Minister is being generous in giving way. It might help the Committee to know what meetings the Government have called, which Governments they have contacted to discuss the matter and what public pronouncements they have made on the subject. I have been unable to find evidence of any.

[Robert Jenrick]

I will write to the hon. Lady again to set out some of the information. I discussed the matter with my officials in preparing for this Committee, and they listed some of the international meetings they have attended, where they represented the United Kingdom exactly as she would like us to have done.

I hope I have addressed amendment 104 in my earlier comments. This is a matter that the Scottish Government could take forward themselves, given that we have already legislated for the devolution of APD. The impacts of any future reductions in Scotland are a matter for the Scottish Government, and they will clearly become more so once we proceed to the long-term arrangement that the hon. Lady wishes for.

The changes being made by clause 60 ensure that the aviation sector continues to play its part in contributing towards the funding of our vital public services, raising £3.4 billion a year. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

Like the hon. Gentleman, I get all the glamorous jobs, so I will endeavour to answer all his questions about landfill.

Clause 64 increases the standard and lower rates of landfill tax in line with inflation from April 2019, as announced in Budget 2017. Landfill tax has been immensely successful. Since its introduction, the amount of waste disposed of at landfill sites has fallen by more than 70%—of course, we would like to go further—and the benefits of that reduction are twofold. The first is to the economy: we have made better use of scarce resources rather than simply tipping them into holes in the ground across the country. Secondly, greenhouse gas emissions from decomposing waste are reduced. When waste is diverted from landfill, we promote more sustainable waste treatment, such as recycling. We are committed to moving towards a more circular economy, and we are working together with business, industry, civil society and the public to achieve that valuable aim. Landfill tax is an important fiscal lever that we can use to achieve it.

The hon. Gentleman asked why the Government are not doing more to meet their recycling target. The Government are very committed to meeting the target of recycling 50% of household waste by 2020. Through the Waste and Resources Action Programme, we are providing guidance and support to local government to help it to improve recycling services and to communicate with householders so that they recycle more. The next milestone in our campaign is the upcoming resources and waste strategy, on which we at the Treasury have been working closely with the Environment Secretary and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. That will outline a number of further measures to increase recycling across the UK.

The hon. Gentleman and others will have noticed other important measures in this regard, including the announcement of a forthcoming consultation with respect to a deposit return scheme and other measures in the Budget—for example, a plastic packaging tax, which is to be consulted on, with the aim of increasing the amount of recycled content in all the plastic packaging that we use in our daily lives.

Landfill tax continues to provide an incentive to reduce waste from landfill and ensure it is recycled and reduced: as landfill is the most expensive form of waste disposal, that makes perfect sense. We have also noted in the Budget that we would be willing to consider a future incineration tax once further infrastructure has been put in place to reduce, for example, the amount of plastics that are incinerated, further improving the environment and reducing the amount of throwaway single-use plastics.

The waste infrastructure delivery programme is providing some £3 billion in grant funding over its lifetime to a number of long-term local authority waste management projects, which has helped to increase recycling rates from 36% in 2008 to 45% in 2017. I hope the hon. Member for Norwich South will await the future resources and waste strategy, which will provide a number of important measures. Those will include further information on the reform of the producer responsibility system, which will play a crucial role in improving recycling capacity and infrastructure in all parts of the country.

The clause also changes the tax on disposal at landfill sites. Each tonne of standard-rated material is currently taxed at £88.95, and lower-rated material draws a tax of £2.80. Those rates per tonne will change to £91.35 and £2.90 respectively from 1 April 2019, which maintains the strong current signal to move waste away from landfill.

Amendment 130 would require a review of the revenue effects of the proposed changes. HMRC published tax information impact notes when the rates were announced at the autumn 2017 Budget.

[Anneliese Dodds]

As far as I understand it, that note did not look into the impact of differential tax rates on waste crime. The picture is very worrying: the number of illegal waste sites that the Environment Agency is dealing with had risen to 1,485 at the end of 2017-18, compared with 1,425 the previous year. The number of those illegal waste sites that were active had also risen—to 673—and there were eight fires at those sites last year, so why is the Minister not considering those factors? Surely a broader review is necessary.

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Lady raises an important question about waste crime, which affects many constituents across the country, including my own. We have taken a number of significant steps. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has conducted with the Home Secretary a review of waste crime, which looked at many of these questions—I believe that review was published recently. We also included a measure in the Budget whereby local authorities, or those responsible for clearing up illegal waste sites, could receive support from the Treasury to enable them to do so if the site met certain criteria, essentially providing support equivalent to the cost of the landfill tax itself. A number of hon. Members from across the House approached us to ask for that support, and we have delivered it as a £10 million pilot.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. However, in the previous Budget, landfill tax was applied to illegal waste sites, so surely that measure is more than a pilot. As I understand it, it came into practice in April this year, because I have been trying to find out whether or not it has been applied to any sites. Surely that money should already be coming into the Exchequer?

[Robert Jenrick]

Perhaps I did not explain myself correctly to the hon. Lady. The measure that she speaks to was in the Budget last year, and has since been implemented via a statutory instrument that went through the House. That measure ensures that the landfill tax is payable on illegal waste sites. The measure that we have included in the Budget enables innocent parties—local authorities that take on, and wish to clean up, a site that has been left by criminals—to apply through the Environment Agency as part of the pilot for a sum of Treasury funding equivalent to the landfill tax, instead of having to pay that tax in addition to all the other costs involved in cleaning up the site. We hope that that will help local authorities with sites that are among the worst and most dangerous to public health to meet the costs of doing so. That measure was requested by a number of Members from across the House.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way yet again. Surely Committee members are scratching their heads and thinking, “Would it not be more efficient and effective just to fund the Environment Agency properly so it can actually do some prosecutions, rather than going through this very complex system?”

[Robert Jenrick]

We do fund the Environment Agency correctly, and it is stepping up its enforcement of these sites. We urged it to do so—that was part of the purpose of the waste crime review. We have also increased the powers available to local authorities. For example, since May 2016, they have been able to issue fixed penalty notices for smaller scale fly-tipping. Fly-tipping is a criminal offence punishable by a fine of up to £50,000 or 12 months’ imprisonment. We wish to see more successful prosecutions, because this is a significant area of criminality that is linked to serious organised crime and other important types of criminality, such as the drug trade and human trafficking, against which we wish to take serious action. That is why fly-tipping was included in the Government’s review of serious organised crime in the waste sector, to which I have already referred.

Amendment 131 seeks to review the effect of these changes on the Government’s ability to meet the waste framework directive target of recycling 50% of waste by 2020, and amendment 132 seeks to review their impact on the amount of waste exported for treatment abroad. As the clause maintains the rates of landfill tax in real terms, we do not expect significant changes to the strong behavioural incentives the tax already provides. Landfill tax continues to play an important role in our meeting our targets for recycling and encouraging alternative forms of waste treatment, and the clause will ensure that landfill remains the most expensive form of waste treatment. Furthermore, I assure the Committee that the Government are committed to meeting the 50% household waste recycling target through the Waste and Resources Action Programme and the upcoming resources and waste strategy, on which we at the Treasury worked extremely closely with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I hope the Committee sees that amendments 131 and 132 are therefore unnecessary.

Amendment 133 would require a review of the expected effect of these changes on the quantity of waste that is sent to landfill. The uprating of landfill tax rates in line with the retail prices index ensures that those rates remain stable in real terms, and means that the tax can continue to help the Government meet their objective. Figures published regularly—annually, I think—by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs show a consistent decrease in the amount of waste sent to landfill as a result of increases to the capacity of alternative waste treatment, such as recycling, which is encouraged by our policy on landfill tax rates. As the clause will keep the rates the same in real terms, that decrease is expected to continue. I trust that provides the Committee with sufficient information, and I ask that amendment 133 not be pressed to a vote.

Amendment 134 would require a review of the expected impact on the environment of increasing the difference between the standard and lower rates of landfill tax. The clause seeks to increase landfill tax rates in line with inflation. That is the equivalent of maintaining the rates in real terms, which means there will be no real-terms change to the difference between the standard and lower rates. Although we appreciate there may be concerns about illegal dumping or breaking of the rules, we do not anticipate the clause making any material difference to those. The issues the hon. Member for Norwich South legitimately raised about individuals or companies dumping waste on which the higher rate should be paid, and seeking to pay the lower rate, are exactly the kinds of matters that were considered in the waste crime strategy. I hope that reassures the Committee, and I ask that amendment 134 not be pressed to a vote.

Office for Budget Responsibility

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Robert Jenrick

Tuesday 24th July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Anneliese Dodds]

May I briefly ask whether the British economy was growing when Labour left office?

[Robert Jenrick]

The British economy had just suffered a severe recession, and we inherited the largest peacetime deficit since the end of the second world war. Nothing exemplifies the situation with the public finances more than the note that was left on the desk in the Treasury office down the road saying that there was no money left.

The OBR produces the official economic and fiscal forecasts for the UK. It does not cost Government policies, but scrutinises and certifies costings initially prepared by the Treasury and other Departments to estimate their impact. That is an important point, to which I will return in a few moments. The OBR also provides detailed public reports, including the fiscal risk report every two years, which we have heard about, and the fiscal sustainability report, which was published last week and which keeps us at the frontier of fiscal management internationally and demonstrates our commitment to fiscal transparency and accountability. I am pleased that, as we heard in the debate, Scotland has followed suit and, since 2014, the role of the Scottish Fiscal Commission has been strengthening. That institution is in its relative infancy, but it appears to be building credibility and working to help keep Scottish finances in check.

The OBR has won international acclaim. Earlier this year, Kevin Page, in a paper for the Centre for Economic Policy Research, said:

“The OBR’s commitment to transparency is likely the gold standard in the IFI community.”

He added:

“The OBR deserves to be considered a leader among”

independent fiscal institutions

“for the transparency of its work and the credibility it derives”,

as we have heard from hon. Members. Protecting that credibility should be as much a priority for Parliament as it is for Government.

Since 2010, there have been a number of calls to expand the OBR’s remit, including proposals, as we have heard today, to report on distributional analysis, performance against child poverty targets, environmental matters and living standards. Each has merits, and deserves discussion and further thought. The OBR was deliberately set up to report on the sustainability of the public finances, and to date that is where we have let the matter settle. Asking the OBR to expand into areas beyond its core expertise and experience carries with it risks to its credibility. We need to consider that carefully before taking any such steps.

The OBR has also been called on to produce costings of policy proposals for Opposition parties. Again, we have heard about that today, and it has been raised by successive shadow Chancellors, including Ed Balls before the 2015 general election. Respected institutions such as the Institute for Fiscal Studies already perform that function well, and we should bear that in mind as we consider such proposals. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire, the IFS recently exposed the folly of some of Labour’s proposed tax increases.

[Anneliese Dodds]

indicated dissent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Lady shakes her head, but the IFS said that those would lead to taxes being raised to their highest in peacetime history. The IFS also questioned whether they would raise as much as the shadow Chancellor claimed, and said that they would hit working families hardest. We do not always need to rely on the OBR to twist the knife, as the IFS has certainly done so repeatedly.

[Anneliese Dodds]

May I respectfully ask how exactly the IFS was able to analyse the Conservative party’s policies, when there was no indication in its manifesto of how any of them would be funded? It appears slightly peculiar to pick on the small number of criticisms made by the IFS of some elements of Labour’s assumptions when no information whatever was provided by the Minister’s party.

[Robert Jenrick]

I would not characterise the IFS’s criticisms of the Labour party’s manifesto as “small”. They were pretty fundamental; the remarks I have just described speak for themselves. The IFS did analyse the policies of the Conservative party in the lead-up to the last manifesto, but let us stick to the question before us today, and apologies to you, Mr Gray, for deviating from it.

A number of arguments have been made today for widening the remit of the OBR. Over previous years, such arguments have been looked at in some detail. Back in 2014, Robert Chote wrote in response to Andrew Tyrie, now Lord Tyrie, who at the time was Chair of the Treasury Committee, setting out his views on the matter. He said that, while some of those arguments undoubtedly had merit and deserved proper consideration by the Government and by Parliament, it was important that we consider

“the significant practical issues that would need to be addressed”.

Let me briefly set out some of those, which we would all need to consider.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire referred to the US Congressional Budget Office. That is a good comparison, although the US system varies from our ours in a number of ways—in particular, Congressmen, Congresswomen and Senators have a much greater ability than Members of the House to initiate legislation that carries with it significant financial implications. However, it is worth considering the remit of the CBO, and its capacity.

The CBO undertakes analytical work in-house and has around 235 members of staff, with an annual budget of around $50 million. In comparison, the Office for Budget Responsibility has just 27 members of staff and costs us around £2.5 million. The OBR is clearly dwarfed in comparison. Although that is not in itself a reason not to proceed, we would have to consider the financial consequences of doing so.

The CBO is required by law to produce cost estimates for nearly every Bill approved by a full budget committee of either the House or the Senate, and produced 740 such formal costings last year, so a significant amount of work would be required. It is worth pointing out that the CBO does not—this is perhaps a more relevant comparison for some of the issues we have discussed this morning—evaluate the costings of candidates for Congress, or indeed of presidential candidates. Clearly, to increase the remit of the OBR would require it to have a significantly larger operation.

Undertaking Opposition costings as part of the parliamentary process would have important implications for the OBR and departmental resources in all Departments, including the Treasury, but the greatest impact would be felt were it to be involved in manifesto costings. The time that the OBR and Departments needed to produce costings would pose very particular difficulties during general elections, some of which are unplanned. It is difficult to see how parties could be afforded the customary flexibility in developing their manifestos until a relatively late stage in the election process, to reflect the public debate in the run-up to the election. Instead, they might have to submit detailed proposals two or three months ahead of a general election. Of course, we could consider that, but we would have to consider carefully the implications for the general election process and the way we have traditionally approached that.

The policies in scope for OBR costings also differ in type from the policies that have dominated the political debate. The detailed costing process at fiscal events covers only tax and welfare policies, which are clearly very important and a significant element of general elections, but are not all the issues reflected in a general election or all the policies in manifestos.

The other point to note is that the OBR does not produce the work in-house. It relies on detailed data produced for it by Departments, including the Treasury, which are then submitted to the OBR for scrutiny and analysis. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) said, the quality of the information is extremely important. Civil servants in Departments would be required to work through political parties’ manifestos and then provide high-quality approved data to the OBR, with which it could do its usual costings.

Air Passenger Duty

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Robert Jenrick

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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Robert Jenrick

Tuesday 22nd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[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.

The Economy

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Robert Jenrick

Thursday 22nd March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Anneliese Dodds]

Does the Minister acknowledge that under his Government, record levels of in-work poverty are affecting children?

[Robert Jenrick]

I am surprised that the hon. Lady cannot bring herself to welcome what I have just described, even in her own constituency, where jobs and employment are booming—

[Anneliese Dodds]

Answer the question.

[Robert Jenrick]

I will come to the hon. Lady’s point.

It is not just important to us to create a country of working people; it is our mission to create a nation of well-paid people in secure and fulfilling careers. We are doing that by tackling the root causes of our low national productivity as no Government have done before. We are seeing some positive signs. Inflation is falling—it fell from 3% to 2.7% in February—and the OBR has said that it will keep falling, leading to real wage growth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

Well, we have been investing in all parts of the United Kingdom, including the east midlands. We created the midlands engine, which I just mentioned and which is designed to unleash the economic potential of the midlands. In the west midlands, we have seen the huge potential that Andy Street has now given to a city that has been run by the Labour party for too long.

What are we doing to invest in new technology? As my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) described, we are investing more in research and development than has been invested since the 1970s, when the statistics were first recorded, so we are probably investing more than has ever been invested in modern times. We have made the R&D tax credits more generous. We are investing in the enterprise investment scheme and the entrepreneurs’ relief that are so important to crowd in investment to the United Kingdom from all over the world. The Chancellor is today at the FinTech summit that the Treasury is hosting, with 600 investors from all over the world coming to the United Kingdom to see some of our most exciting business that are creating 60,000 new jobs in the FinTech sector alone.

What have we done to create a business environment? We have lowered capital gains tax and corporation tax, and committed to lowering it still further. Labour would reverse those changes. Our reductions in corporation tax have actually resulted in more tax revenue for the Treasury and more money for public services. That is prosperity over ideology.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am sure that the Minister wants to be accurate on these matters. Therefore, perhaps he will slightly correct his suggestion that the increased revenue was due to the reduction in corporation tax. So many commentators—including, I believe, the IFS—have said that the increase in revenue is due to, for example, banks returning to profitability, and it should not be connected with the reduction in rate.

[Robert Jenrick]

In the Treasury we try to deal in facts, rather than in comments, and the effect of reducing corporation tax has been an increase in revenue.

The Chief Secretary and other Conservative Members have said that we must make the case once again for free markets—something we thought we might never have to do again. However, as Margaret Thatcher and, I think, Tony Benn—an unusual pairing—used to say, “There are no final victories in politics, and if you want to continue to win important arguments, you have to keep making them and restating them over and over again.” The case for free markets is threatened as never before by the hard-left, heirloom policies and personalities of Labour Front Benchers. As someone who used to work in the auction business, I can spot an antique a mile away.

The central battle on this conflicting vision of our society is being fought again. That matters for two reasons. First, just as our parents and grandparents paid the price for this ideology last time it was employed in this country, we do not want our children and grandchildren to pay the price for its resurrection today. Last time, it left us a weak country saddled with debt and high taxes, unable and unwilling to embrace new technology or to invest in public services—and working people paid the price.

Secondly, to paraphrase Robert Kennedy, living in a democracy is not merely about the absence of tyranny but the presence of freedom. A free market matters to us and our constituents not just because we have learned that it is the best way to run an economy but because it underpins all our other freedoms. That is why we will continue to defend it as we build an economy and a country that works for everyone.

Finance Bill

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Robert Jenrick

Tuesday 31st October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Anneliese Dodds]

If we are talking about payments made for discrimination in the context of a redundancy payment, yes, they are. That is our exact point, which is why we are discussing this matter about injury to feelings. We have had some comments in this House which appear to misunderstand the nature of injury to feelings payments. In some cases, these have been trivialised, almost suggesting that these payments are made because an employees’ nose has been put out of joint rather than something potentially more serious. But “injury to feelings” is a substantive legal category. Where there is genuine evidence of misuse of this category, that should be stamped out, but we have not been provided with such evidence as part of our deliberations on the Bill. Injury to feelings is related directly to discrimination experienced by a person because of their characteristics as an individual—their age, gender, sexual orientation, disability status or ethnicity. This should be taken seriously and it should not be a focus for penalising individuals, as is the case under these proposals. Again, as my hon. Friend suggested, this appears to be part of a piece, with more general measures watering down the protection to individuals suffering from discrimination at work, whether or not they take that discrimination to a tribunal. Clearly, tribunal fees have been struck down because of their discriminatory impact. Now measures are popping up that water down individuals’ protections in other ways.

[Robert Jenrick]

Just so that our constituents appreciate what is happening in the broader context, does the hon. Lady welcome the announcement that was made in September by the presidents of the employment tribunals of England and Wales that, in each of the three bands for injury to feelings, the maximum award is rising?

[Anneliese Dodds]

Again, I would be very careful to separate out tribunal awards that are made in the context of discrimination at work, which is not what we are talking about, from awards that might relate to redundancy, which is what we are focused on. In relation to discrimination generally, there has been a long-running discussion about what the rates should be for different bands. If one looks at the average award, or, even better, the median award, we are not talking about massive sums of money. It is very important that the public receive that message. For example, someone who has experienced discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is generally receiving much less than £10,000—I regret that I cannot recall the exact figure. It is very important that we do not give the impression that people are somehow holding companies to ransom in this area. Indeed, that is perhaps underlying some of the change that has been forced on the Government through the court decision that we should not have tribunal fees, because these tribunals are being used not vexatiously, but purposely for people to protect their rights at work.

In conclusion, Labour’s message on this Finance Bill is clear. We felt that it offered an opportunity to reboot our economy, to deal with our massive productivity challenges and our cost of living crisis, and to shore up public finances by sealing loopholes for the very best-off people and biggest multinational companies. Instead, we have a series of missed opportunities and measures focused on soft targets, rather than on those who can afford expensive accountants and engage in complex schemes to avoid tax.