Net Migration Figures

Debate between Bob Stewart and Robert Jenrick

Thursday 25th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

As I said in answer to earlier questions, we expect numbers to reduce. We are taking further steps this week, which we think will make a material difference. If we need to do more, we will, because net migration is far too high. I hope the hon. Gentleman, by his question, agrees with me in that regard, and that he will support the measures we take to bring numbers down.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

If it were possible for everyone who crosses the channel illegally in a small boat to be returned to France, that would be not only in our interests but in the interests of France, because we would stop people buffering on its north-east coast to try to get into this country. I know it is very difficult, but what are the chances that that could happen, because it would solve the problem?

[Robert Jenrick]

We are making considerable efforts to deepen our relationship with the French Government. In fact, next week I will be in Paris to meet our counterparts in the French Interior Ministry. The Prime Minister achieved, in short succession, two significant deals that are leading to an increase in activity on the beaches, increased joint working on counter-organised immigration crime, and a new joint working centre in Lille that I will be visiting shortly. If there was a possibility of a readmissions agreement with France, that is certainly something the Government would welcome and we have made that clear. In our conversations with both President Macron and the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, we offered a range of solutions that could lead to that.

I would just say, however, that the previous readmissions agreement—Dublin—which operated during our time in the European Union, was not successful. In the last years of its operation, more people were being brought from France to the United Kingdom than were sent from the UK to France, so this is not a panacea. But if there are ways in which we can take this forward, we will.

Sanctions

Debate between Bob Stewart and Robert Jenrick

Tuesday 22nd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

My right hon. and learned Friend’s point has a lot to commend it. I suggest to the Government that they introduce further measures as quickly as possible, preferably in concert with our allies.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

My real worry is that Putin has actually been very clever: he has advanced into an area that his forces effectively control already and he will stop there. That would divide our allies—for example, Hungary and Germany may not agree—and we would not be able to get sanctions agreed internationally. That is the real worry and why he is not perhaps as mad as we think. He is actually doing this with purpose and he has a plan.

[Robert Jenrick]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point. If the scenario that plays out is the first of the ones that I described, there will be little opportunity to introduce further sanctions, because this may be all that Putin intends to do.

I want to make a last point on the specifics of the package that was announced, and I am afraid that I will repeat the comments of right hon. and hon. Members across the House. The banks that have been chosen are relatively minor. I worked as a corporate lawyer, including in Russia, and these are not the primary banks that international institutions, major corporations or the major oligarchs go to to seek finance, so the impact will be relatively limited. I have not seen the latest debates from the United States, but when I last looked at them, our colleagues and friends in the US Senate, for example, were looking at pursuing some of the larger banks such as SberBank. If we were going to make any impact, it would be important to bring forward measures against one, two or more of the larger banks, which are genuinely those that major institutions and the oligarchs whose names have been mentioned in this House today are more likely to use for finance.

Secondly, the list of individuals is very small, and the lion’s share of them have already been sanctioned for a long time by the United States. There are many others we could reach. In my work as a lawyer and in business, as managing director of Christie’s, I had the pleasure—if we can call it that—of meeting a number of the individuals who have been described today as oligarchs. Those individuals are not on the list. There is a much larger group of individuals we could and should now be reaching, and we could tackle them in a range of ways. In many respects, what they most fear is losing the ability to travel—to leave Russia and go skiing in France or Switzerland or shopping in London or Paris. It does not have to be a full sanction, but the list that we are currently considering is far too small.

If we were sitting in the same room as the Russian leadership today, I think we would see a very nonplussed reaction. There is more we can and should do. I hope that further measures will be brought forward in the coming days; I certainly stand ready, as I think all colleagues across the House do, to support them.

Beer Taxation and Pubs

Debate between Bob Stewart and Robert Jenrick

Thursday 28th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

It certainly is, and I will talk shortly about the relief the hon. Gentleman mentions, which has played a significant part in that flowering and which I believe we can make better and fit for purpose for the future.

The value of beer exports has risen now to £500 million a year, and we heard earlier about the tremendous results also with respect to Scotch whisky and other spirits.

Small brewer’s relief gives the smallest brewers across the country a 50% reduction in duty and, as we have heard, it has helped fuel the explosion in the number of local breweries; we now have over 2,000 breweries across the country. At the autumn Budget we announced a review of this relief to give brewers the opportunity to share their thoughts on a relief that is now 17 years old and which has not been reviewed systematically over the course of that period. We have opened the review and had over 500 responses which we will carefully consider and report back on in due course.

Our motives at the Treasury have not been to extract more revenue from the sector, and certainly not to end the relief. However, for some of the reasons that the hon. Member for Keighley (John Grogan) and others mentioned, there is some evidence that although the relief has been hugely positive in some respects, it has limited the growth of some businesses that would like to expand and employ more people and that are concerned about the cliff edge that the relief creates. I hope that we will be able to work with breweries and organisations such as the Society of Independent Brewers to work through that and to do something positive for the industry.

With respect to beer duty, we have taken a number of steps over the past nine years to improve the situation in a country that has been widely acknowledged to have high levels of alcohol taxation. We removed the beer escalator, and we have either cut or frozen beer duty in six of the last seven fiscal events, so that the duty on a pint is lower now than it was in 2012. In real terms, this long-term and significant action by the Government has kept prices low for everyone, in contrast to the period from 1997 to 2010, during which beer duty increased by 60%. This was underlined at the most recent Budget with another freeze on beer duty, meaning that the price of a typical pint of beer is now 2p lower than if prices had risen with inflation. I appreciate that there is always more that we could do this respect.

We are also focusing on other alcohol, such as cider and spirits. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) talked about the importance of spirits to his constituency and to many others across Scotland. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) talked about their importance to the wider Scottish economy. She also asked me a question about post-duty point dilution. We have given this matter considerable thought for some time, and we announced at the Budget that we will be bringing this practice to an end from April 2020. She also asked, as did the hon. Member for Oxford East, about a wider review of alcohol duty more generally. This is a complex area, and there are clearly no easy answers. There are certainly few answers that are fiscally neutral and that would create no losers, which would be important to many who work or own businesses in the sector. It is perhaps premature to conduct a review at this moment, because the greatest flexibility will be available to us after we leave the European Union. A future Chancellor might then have the choice to take action.

We heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) about responsible drinking, and they asked whether we could lower the duty on low-alcohol beers. We are somewhat constrained in that respect by EU law. The EU alcohol structures directive sets the maximum threshold for reduced duty on low-alcohol beer at 2.8%. Her Majesty’s Government charge a reduced duty of 6p a pint on beers with a strength between 1.2% and 2.8%. Until we leave the EU, we cannot raise the threshold for low-alcohol beer above 2.8%, but this is something that we will work on with our partners across Europe, and we could have further flexibility in the years ahead. The Government have taken action in some specific circumstances—with respect to white cider, for example—and our approach is that we will continue to take action as necessary where there is clear evidence that certain alcohol duty rates are causing difficulties for society.

We have heard a great deal about pubs, which are, as we heard from numerous colleagues, the bedrock of many rural and urban communities. As the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) rightly highlighted, they boost the economy, create jobs and, crucially, act as hubs for our communities. We have heard about their importance in tackling loneliness, and about the issues for older people, whether older gentlemen or others. They are great places for people to work and start their careers in. The pub industry currently employs about 450,000 people, many of whom are younger people, as has been said.

[Bob Stewart]

I rise, again, as an older gentleman. We have been talking about what pubs do. Let us imagine people who live in pretty awful accommodation—a bedsit or something like that. The local pub can provide a really nice, friendly, warm environment. That is the sort of place that those people can go to, and in my view that is the real advantage of local pubs.

[Robert Jenrick]

I agree with everything that my hon. Friend just said.

I will talk briefly about business rates in the short amount of time available to me because they have been an important element of this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) brought some of her publicans to see me at the Treasury to discuss the matter. We have taken several actions to support pubs by lowering their tax burden. The most important of them—this comes into effect on 1 April—is the Chancellor’s Budget announcement that the business rates bills of small and medium-sized retailers, including pubs, will be cut by a third. The policy has been set for maximum impact among retailers and pubs with a rateable value of £51,000 or below. I appreciate that that will have less impact in communities such as my hon. Friend’s, where rateable values are high, but 90% of retailers and between 70% and 85% of pubs across the United Kingdom will benefit, with pubs seeing a tax saving of up to £8,000. We also previously had the £1,000 discount for small and medium-sized pubs, and many pubs will also benefit from up to 100% small business rates relief or the 100% rural rate relief. Of course, all ratepayers are benefiting from the switch from RPI to CPI.

The hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) mentioned the request of many, including the industry, to create a rate of beer duty that differentiates between people drinking in a pub and people purchasing beer in a supermarket or convenience store. I can see the strong argument for that, but it is unfortunately not possible under EU law. Duty is levied on production, not on the place of consumption. However, we might be able to turn to that should we have sufficient flexibility.

I conclude by thanking the Backbench Business Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North, both of whom gave superb speeches. This debate unified the House and demonstrated the important role that pubs can play in our communities. I will certainly relay the strong feelings from across the House to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor with respect to the next Budget and the future of beer duty. The House’s voice is clear that it wants, like people the length and breadth of the country, further and continued support for beer, breweries and our important pubs.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Bob Stewart and Robert Jenrick

Tuesday 3rd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[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.

Palestine and Israel

Debate between Bob Stewart and Robert Jenrick

Monday 13th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

I have to declare an interest, as I am married to an Israeli—Israeli-born—woman and those who are married to a strong Israeli woman will know who is boss in our household. We have heard a wide range of moving and passionate contributions this evening. In the interests of time, I will not rehearse all that has been said, but I think that there is much common ground: we believe that the Palestinian people have the inalienable right to self-determination and that the Israeli people have the unquestionable right to live in peace and security, with all Arab and Muslim countries recognising and respecting the state of Israel. We regard both peoples as equal in dignity and rights and we wish the United Kingdom to remain at the forefront of international efforts to bring about an end to the conflict.

[Bob Stewart]

On that point, in area C there certainly are not equal rights in the occupied territories. Palestinians are under military law, while Israelis are under Israeli civil law. There have not been many prosecutions of Israelis in area C.

[Robert Jenrick]

I take the powerful point that my hon. Friend has made.

The question before the House tonight is not whether we wish to see a Palestinian state as part of a two-state solution or whether we wish to consider ourselves, or be perceived by others beyond the House, as strong supporters of a Palestinian state. It is whether in passing this motion today we would increase the prospect of a lasting settlement, reduce the obstacles to it and increase this country’s ability—modest as it may be—to influence that process positively, not diminish it.

I have listened to the debate this evening and the debate that has surrounded it, but I have not heard the case put convincingly. Only a handful of Members have answered the question directly, notably the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw). Other Members have spoken of a gesture, a symbol or a small nudge. I do not question the intentions of the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), but I fear that he is deceiving himself if he truly believes that passing the motion will breathe new life into the peace process.

Middle East and North Africa

Debate between Bob Stewart and Robert Jenrick

Thursday 17th July 2014 Westminster Hall

[Robert Jenrick]

We have had a good and productive relationship with Jordan for many years. Clearly, if Jordan had taken a more decisive role in running those territories, the position today would be different.

On what we as a country can do and what I would like the Government to do to try to help in Jordan, the first question that my contacts in Jordan raise with me is how can we better enable Jordan to counter military Islamist inroads. Primarily, that is a task for the US, but we have a role to play, part of which is economic support. Jordan is often—inaccurately—thought to be a wealthy country, but parts of it are under-served or economically depressed and there are restive regions that, being economically depressed, tend to become fertile ground for Islamist terrorists. There is certainly a role in encouraging the US, our allies and the key regional allies such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE to increase their financial contributions. Many commentators have asked whether the UK and the US could convene a conference for friends of Jordan, or something along those lines to encourage the monarchy’s western friends and regional allies to contribute more and to ensure greater rapid economic development.

[Bob Stewart]

I lived in Jordan when I was a boy, in the valley where David killed Goliath, as a matter of record. One of the biggest problems that Jordan faces is that almost half the population seem to have come in as refugees. It is a huge economic problem for this country that is so pro-west.

[Robert Jenrick]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The difference in terms of development and western views between an area such as Oman and some of those areas with heavy immigrant populations is dramatic and not seen by most business travellers to the region.

The second area I want to touch on is whether the kingdom would benefit from expanded training in counter-insurgency warfare and in detecting improvised explosive devices.