Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jonathan Reynolds and Sammy Wilson

Thursday 5th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I meet businesses every day, and my most recent engagement was the breakfast we did on our plans to make work pay, where businesses themselves were pointing out the things they are doing because they value and care for their workforce and will invest in them. The issue in Rochdale he refers to is close to my heart as a Member of Parliament from just down the road in Tameside. I will of course have that meeting with him and continue to work closely with him to deliver on his objectives.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

As part of the Government’s net zero strategy, car manufacturers are expected to produce 22% of their cars as electric vehicles and face a £15,000 penalty for every car by which they fall short of that. The target is expected to be missed by 100,000 cars this year because of consumer resistance. The effect on the car industry is that producers are restricting supplies of petrol cars to retailers, and some are threatening to pull out of the UK market altogether. In the light of consumer resistance, will the Secretary of State look again at the target set, since consumers are clearly not going to be forced to purchase cars they do not want, and producers will be forced to try to get rid of cars they cannot sell?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for that question. The policy to which he refers—the zero emission vehicle mandate—and its penalties as we ramp up to the phasing out of petrol and diesel vehicles is actually a Department for Transport policy of the previous Government. We supported it, because there is no point in having an objective to phase out petrol and diesel vehicles without a corresponding ramping up of regulation to do that.

There is an issue with consumer demand, which affects all of Europe. We are working closely on that. Under the policies of the last Government, there are flexibilities—things that can be transferred from one financial year to the next. We keep everything under close review, but we are committed to the transition. That is essential to industry and consumer confidence and making sure that that happens. Every country in the world has similar policies. This is an ongoing transition, and we are absolutely going to make it work for British industry.

Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill

Debate between Jonathan Reynolds and Sammy Wilson

2nd reading
Monday 7th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

We all know that a week can be a long time in politics but, amazingly, it is just 40 days since the resignation of Lord Agnew, who cited, among other things, that he thought the Government would not be willing to bring forward an economic crime Bill this year as his reason for walking out. That statement was of huge concern to many of us. The urgent question that we asked on that matter showed the coalition that exists on both sides of the House which wants real action to be taken on those issues.

Having listened to the Second Reading debate today, I think it is clear that the coalition has assembled again. It should not have taken Ukraine for the Bill to happen, but at least we have the first stage of the legislation. I counted 19 contributions from Back Benchers, all of whom agreed that the legislation should proceed. The Opposition also welcome the Bill and what it contains. There are things that we want to strengthen but we are clear that we will work with the Government to secure its passage today.

As was evident from the beginning of the debate, however, the Bill is not the totality of what is required. Other reforms, such as those to Companies House and to Scottish limited partnerships, must follow. The economic crime Bill promised in the next Queen’s Speech must be presented in the early part of the next Session and must make those reforms. I was in conversation with the Minister for much of last week. I welcome the assurances that have been given and that the Home Secretary gave from the Dispatch Box when she opened the debate.

The Bill covers three main areas: the register of overseas entities, the changes to unexplained wealth orders and the changes to the sanctions regime. I will cover all three. The main part of the Bill deals with the register of overseas entities, on which many hon. Members understandably focused. I very much agree with the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) that that should be considered a mainstream part of a healthy transparent economy, and that it is not economic warfare to expect that level of transparency—to tell us for the first time who actually owns property in the UK and to make that information publicly available. I have long believed that transparency in this area is essential. Football clubs and luxury yachts get attention because they are visible. What I want to know is who owns the property in plain sight all around us, not just because of oligarchs and their position in the Putin regime, but because of the money launderers and the tax evaders. We have needed transparency in this area for years.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Member accept that it is one thing to have a register and insist that people fill in the register and fill it in honestly, but it is another thing to ensure that that register is properly checked? Without the resources, skills and acumen to do that, this could become just another piece of legislation that people can bypass.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I understand the right hon. Member’s scepticism, and he is of course right to acknowledge, as we have heard many times in this debate, that any measures are only as good as the enforcement mechanisms that exist and the resources behind them. What is significant about a register of property is that, if we do it properly, we can essentially prevent the sale of a property, because we can refuse to register the new ownership unless the measures have been followed. However, his argument about the wider reform required, certainly in relation to Companies House, is absolutely well made, and that is why the second piece of this legislation—the second Bill—is so essential.

Universal Credit and Working Tax Credit

Debate between Jonathan Reynolds and Sammy Wilson

Monday 18th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House believes that the Government should stop the planned cut in Universal Credit and Working Tax Credit in April and give certainty today to the six million families for whom it is worth an extra £1,000 a year.

I am not here to claim that Conservative MPs are heartless, lack compassion, or have insufficient regard for the poorest people in this country. I know that after the vote on free school meals, many Conservative MPs, mainly after comments made by other Conservative MPs, received a high degree of personal abuse, and I want to make it clear unequivocally that that is wrong. I am here to put forward a clear and, I believe, compelling case that reducing universal credit and working tax credit this April would be fundamentally the wrong decision. It would be a profound mistake for families, for the economy and for our ability to effectively tackle and recover from the covid pandemic.

Before putting forward that case, I wish to address the Prime Minister’s suggestion that Parliament is somehow not the right place to have this discussion. Opposition days have been a feature of our parliamentary system for many decades. They were used very successfully by the Conservative party when it was in opposition—for example, when the Labour Government were defeated over resettlement rights for Gurkhas in 2009, or over post office closures. All majority Governments, except this one, have accepted that if they cannot win a vote in Parliament on one of their policies, then they have to change that policy. This decision cannot be deferred until a Budget, because the Government cancelled the November Budget and have not brought forward a Finance Bill since March.

I put it to all Members that Parliament is exactly the right place to have a discussion of such consequence to the country. The Government cannot expect to preach parliamentary sovereignty one week, and run away from parliamentary scrutiny the next. Too often, the Prime Minister seems unwilling to abide by basic democratic norms and to accept proper scrutiny and accountability. We have seen in the US where that can end.

Let me also say at the outset that, throughout the pandemic, the Opposition have always sought to be constructive. The official Opposition want the national strategy to succeed. In that spirit, we welcomed the changes that the Government made to universal credit at the beginning of the crisis. The £20-a-week weekly increase, and the suspension of conditionality and the minimum income floor, were necessary steps to support people. Recognition must also go to frontline Department for Work and Pensions staff, who kept our social security system going through the early stages of the crisis, making sure that hundreds of thousands of new claimants received the support they needed. All those staff deserve our praise, from the civil servants working in the Department to the security guards I met recently, who face difficult working conditions keeping Jobcentre Plus offices open.

However, the fact that such urgent changes were required to provide a basic safety net is a telling assessment of where the social security system was when we went into the crisis. If we cannot properly support people in a time of need without emergency surgery to the system, it is not fit for purpose. The fact is that support for people in this country when they lose their job or cannot work is significantly lower than in comparable European countries.

I will address three points: how we got here; the case for reversing this cut to secure our economy; and, finally, the human impact if the Government refuse to change course.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a pressing reason to have a debate and vote on this issue today is the fact that all the evidence suggests that the restrictions resulting from the measures taken to deal with covid have hit the poorest in society hardest? Poverty is up, and those people who most depend on this kind of support are the ones who are most damaged at the moment.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I agree. Inequality, and the differential impact on people, has been one of the defining features of this crisis. I do not think anyone can avoid that. It is relevant to make that point in this debate.

We have to be honest about the state of our social security system going into the crisis. Since 2010, poverty has increased significantly in the UK. In addition, people who were in poverty in 2010 are now so much deeper in poverty than they were. This is not an argument about definitions. Conservatives themselves were the driving influences behind bodies such as the Social Metrics Commission, which came up with a new definition of poverty that was actually very similar to the one that has traditionally been used. The Government’s own estimate is that 4.2 million British children live in poverty. That is shameful, wrong and unnecessary.

The UK, along with Ireland, is an outlier compared with the rest of Europe when it comes to inequality. That means that the reality for millions of families is that they went into this crisis already under significant pressure. As the Resolution Foundation said in 2019, the 1.7% increase to universal credit that year was the first working-age benefit increase for five years. Last year, the real value of basic out-of-work support was lower than when John Major was Prime Minister, so anyone claiming that the system is too generous, or who is trying to resurrect the stigmatising rhetoric of George Osborne, simply has no case to make.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Jonathan Reynolds and Sammy Wilson

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

[Jonathan Reynolds]

My hon. Friend is entirely correct. As we know, sometimes the situation in the Government means that they tend to look around for ideas, and they often find best practice in the Labour party.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the additional capital that is being put into housing, the attack on companies that engage in land banking and the aid to enable small builders to build more houses are all supply side measures?