Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)]

4. What recent assessment the Government have made of the effect of the national productivity investment fund on road and rail infrastructure in the north-west.

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

This Government have put raising our national productivity at the heart of our mission. From the national productivity investment fund, we have already announced over £50 million of investment in road and rail in the north-west, and this is in addition to the transforming cities allocations to Manchester of £243 million and to Liverpool of £135 million.

[Damien Moore]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the £31 billion national productivity investment fund, targeted at transport, digital communications, research and development and housing, will boost the infrastructure of the UK economy?

[Robert Jenrick]

The latest statistics show that we have had the best run of productivity growth since before the financial crisis, but we are certainly not complacent. The national productivity investment fund is improving passenger journeys, our roads and our broadband connections and delivering more homes, all of which are key to raising the wages and living standards of people in Southport and across the country.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

The problem is that the national productivity investment fund is not doing anything to stop the disrepair on our roads and motorways. The Government are simply not putting in enough money for local councils and the national agency to make sure that repairs on motorways and local roads are brought up to standard. We now have a greater crisis than we have seen for some time.

[Robert Jenrick]

I am afraid that I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s analysis. The Government have put a record amount of investment into our roads and rail. As the Chancellor announced in the autumn, there is further money for transport projects in the north. There is £13 billion in total to improve transport across the north of England.

[Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)]

rose—

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

This Government have done nothing to deliver local rail infrastructure in the north-west, which is vital for jobs and the economy. When are they going to invest in decent local rail services, including those used by my constituents from Southport to Manchester? If the Government will not do it, they should stand aside and let us get on with the job.

[Robert Jenrick]

The Government have been investing more in railways across the country than any Government since Victorian times, including in the north of England. Across the country, the Government have invested £0.25 trillion in infrastructure projects since 2010, 4,500 of which have already been completed.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

5. What plans the Government have to invest in major infrastructure during the 2017 Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

15. What fiscal steps he is taking to support regional infrastructure development.

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

As the Institute for Fiscal Studies has confirmed, under our plan, public investment will reach levels not sustained since the late 1970s by the end of this Parliament. We want to see that investment across the United Kingdom. We are delivering £13 billion of transport investment in the north and have launched a £1.7 billion transport fund to transform our great cities.

[Mike Amesbury]

Devolution in the Labour-controlled Liverpool city region and Greater Manchester is beginning to unlock opportunities for investment in infrastructure, research and development, and innovation in the north-west, allowing facilities such as the Daresbury campus in my constituency to develop and prosper. Does the Minister agree that if we are to be able to realise the full potential of our regions, devolution needs to extend to the many of my constituents and not the few?

[Robert Jenrick]

I am delighted to hear the positive story that the hon. Gentleman has given to the devolution that we have created as a Government. In the past week I have met the Mayors of Liverpool and Greater Manchester. We are committed to working with anyone who shares our commitment to the economic growth and prosperity of the north of England.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

16. What recent assessment he has made of the effect of Government investment on the Scottish economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)]

I am very much in favour of gift aid, but some large charities say that they receive no direct support from Government but do receive gift aid and the Exchequer will not publish those figures. Will the Chancellor reconsider this?

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

The Revenue does not disclose the sums that individual charities receive from gift aid due to its obligations to respect taxpayer confidentiality under the 2005 legislation. Of course, some large charities do so voluntarily. Cancer Research is one example, and receives £31 million in this way. I am sympathetic to my right hon. Friend’s argument and will take the matter forward.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

Ryanair has announced the slashing of more than 20 Glasgow airport routes, a cut of more than 1 million passengers and the loss of up to 300 jobs. The high level of APD and the delay in introducing the air departure tax—caused by this Government’s not notifying the European Commission regarding the ongoing exemption for the highlands and islands—have been cited as a reason. Another is the Brexit uncertainty in the aviation sector. With more routes and jobs likely to go, what are the Chancellor and his colleagues doing to support the aviation sector during Brexit negotiations?

Draft Soft Drinks Industry Levy (Enforcement) regulations 2018

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Wednesday 7th February 2018 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Soft Drinks Industry Levy (Enforcement) Regulations 2018.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. The draft regulations will help to complete the legislative framework for the soft drinks industry levy, which is well known to right hon. and hon. Members and will take effect from 6 April this year, as they may be aware. The levy is an important part of the Government’s childhood obesity plan, and the aim is for it to be a significant element in reducing the problem over the next 10 years. As well as encouraging children and families to make healthier dietary choices, the plan will help children to enjoy an extra hour of physical activity every day.

Children in the UK are consuming far too much sugar—three times the recommended level. The soft drinks industry produces our favourite soft drinks, which are a major source of sugar for children and teenagers, as well as adults. The levy, which has been introduced to encourage soft drinks manufacturers to reduce their sugar content, is already working, even before it comes into force in April: we estimate that approximately half the soft drinks that were above the sugar threshold when the levy was announced in 2016 have been reformulated to reduce their sugar content. We have seen the reformulation from major brands and household names that we are all aware of—Sprite, Fanta and Tango, to name just a few—and other producers have announced plans to reduce the size of larger packs.

All of this is good news for our nation’s children and adults, our health, our teeth, our waistlines and the cost to the national health service. The reformulations have meant that our original revenue forecasts have been lowered, but as we set out clearly when the policy was mooted, our objective was never to raise money from the taxpayers as an end in itself; it was always to improve public health. The revenue will be less than first suggested, but regardless of how much is raised, the Government remain committed to funding the Department for Education with the £1 billion that we originally expected, and providing the devolved Administrations with the full amount that we promised at the time.

Every penny of England’s share of the spending raised by the levy will go towards improving children’s health, including by doubling the primary sports premium to improve the quality of PE in schools. We will also provide extra funding for school breakfast clubs, which can help the most disadvantaged children in society to have a healthier start to the day. Finally, we will provide £100 million in 2018-19 for the healthy pupils capital fund, which helps schools to upgrade their sports grounds, playing fields and changing rooms.

To continue to deliver our objectives, it is vital that we have the enforcement measures we need to ensure that the levy works, and that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has effective compliance powers to prevent evasion, if that proves necessary further down the line. The primary legislation behind the levy is the Finance Act 2017, section 54 of which enables the draft regulations to provide HMRC with the same powers that it uses to tackle every excise duty evasion, including alcohol duty. That makes sense because the supply chains for alcohol and soft drinks are comparable and often involve the same people and similar risks. Enforcement is expected to come under the control of the very experienced compliance teams at HMRC.

The draft regulations specify that, of the enforcement powers in the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, only those powers that are really useful and relevant will be available for enforcing the levy. That includes powers of entry, search of premises and seizure of drinks, all of which are essential for tackling excise duty evasion and ensuring that legitimate suppliers are not adversely affected by those who engage in criminality. As with the enforcement of other excise duties, the powers will be used only where there are reasonable grounds to suspect non-compliance, and all use will be subject to strict governance procedures. Were HMRC not to have these powers, the risk of fraud would increase significantly and the legitimate businesses that manufacture soft drinks would not be able to compete on a level playing field.

In summary, the Government believe that the soft drinks industry levy is a vital part of our plan to tackle childhood obesity. It is only one of a number of measures being taken by the Government today, and we would like to take more in future. It has had a proven impact. We are seeing that impact in all household brands of soft drinks on the shelves; they will contain less sugar and provide a healthier drink for our children and adults. The regulations provide HMRC with enforcement powers that are proportionate and have been well scrutinised through extensive public consultation, so I hope colleagues will join me in supporting the regulations, which I commend to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for the levy, which will play an important part in tackling childhood obesity. As I was at pains to stress in my opening speech, the levy is only one element of a much wider Government strategy. The Opposition and other right hon. and hon. Members will have seen the childhood obesity plan that was published. Nobody pretends that the soft drinks industry levy contains all the elements of that plan, but it is a significant element and, again, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support.

The levy is working, and we have seen that in the large number of suppliers of soft drinks that have already reformulated their products. As a result, the tax will raise less revenue than was previously expected. It was never designed as a tax-raiser; it was always designed to stimulate improvements in public health. In the autumn Budget of 2017, we laid out our expectation that the levy would raise around £275 million, yet the Treasury remains 100% committed to the original promise of over £1 billion of extra money for the Department for Education.

[Clive Lewis]

While we welcome the £1 billion—the extra funding—to plug those gaps, if the Government then cut 3.9% of spending on public health and, it is predicted, millions by 2020, does the Minister not concede that they are giving with one hand and taking with the other?

[Robert Jenrick]

I dispute the hon. Gentleman’s analysis of our funding of the NHS, which has risen in every year of this Parliament. In the autumn Budget of 2017, the Chancellor committed to providing more money for both the NHS and adult social care.

The levy is an example of where the Government are taking action. We are using the tax code to change behaviours for the public benefit, and we are committed to significant increases in spending for school sports, breakfast clubs and all the other important things that will benefit from the funds coming from the levy. Every single penny raised by the levy will go to support school sports and the public health initiatives that I mentioned, plus the additional revenue that the Treasury committed to and is in no way backing down on, despite the success of the levy.

[Clive Lewis]

rose—

[Robert Jenrick]

If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will press ahead on this occasion; I have given way to him in the past.

As for the capacity of HMRC, this is a task that HMRC is very used to and has expertise in. It uses that capacity for all forms of alcohol excise duties, such as those that apply to the spirits industry and so on. There is no reason to question whether HMRC can do this work. Indeed, the powers that we are considering today are those that HMRC has requested. The levy has been fully subject to a public consultation with the industry. HMRC’s voice has been heard in that consultation and we believe that HMRC will be effective in enforcing this levy and in ensuring that there is no criminality, or only minimal criminality, involved with it.

As for the question of whether or not we have reviewed, or will review, the impact of the levy, we have committed to such a review—in 2020, I think—so that will be the point at which we can clearly see the impact of the levy on both public health and the industry. With that, Sir Edward, I commend the regulations to the House.

Stamp Duty Reform

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd January 2018 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter—I almost said Mr Speaker there; perhaps that is a Freudian slip. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) for organising this debate and for bringing to it his customary thoughtful style and experience as a solicitor. I was also a solicitor before coming to this House, although not a property one. I am aware of some of the experiences that he has had and in my prior life, before being appointed as a Minister, I was very interested in the property market and some of the questions that he has raised today. I will try to respond to as many of those as possible, but let me first raise some of the background to stamp duty and the Government’s recent reforms, because it is fair to say that there has been a great deal of activity in the area over the last few years.

Stamp duty as we know it was introduced in 2003. It replaced the former stamp duty regime, which my hon. Friend will remember from his time as a solicitor and required the physical stamping of documents. It raises over £11 billion a year, which makes an important contribution to our public services, as he said—we should remember that in the context of this debate—including £8.6 billion a year from residential property transactions. Although we continue to seek ways to reform stamp duty, we have to bear in mind its importance to the Treasury and our public services.

Over the last few years, stamp duty has played a significant part in a number of different budgets, and the Government’s objectives when considering it and its impact on residential property purchases have been above all to support first-time buyers, and to sustain the tax base. We are trying to keep the tax as simple as possible and to reduce it where possible. We are aware of the distortions that the tax can inevitably lead to, which deters people from moving home, from downsizing and from upscaling, and the effect that has on quality of life. Buying a home and changing where a person lives is obviously one of the most important decisions that they make, and we want to make sure that, where possible, the tax system does not interfere in that. We see it as an important lever in the housing market, but not the only lever. The housing market requires supply-side reforms as well as tax changes, and any reform of stamp duty can only be one potentially small element in our housing policies.

With those priorities in mind, the Government have taken a succession of significant actions to reform how stamp duty works. In 2010, the stepped structure of stamp duty through the most widely applicable price bracket created distortions in the housing market, which everyone was familiar with, particularly people such as my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) who have worked as estate agents. We wanted to iron out some of those problems for both sellers and buyers. The stepped increases in rates meant, for example, that those moving up the housing ladder were met with large increases in tax when properties fell into higher brackets.

In 2014, we took action to reform stamp duty on residential properties at the autumn statement, which many hon. Members will remember. We changed the stepped increases to a variable rate that increased with the price of the property purchased. That was an important and successful reform and led to about 98% of people liable for stamp duty finding their bills reduced. There were new, higher rates for properties of the highest value, which increased the tax paid by so-called prime and super-prime properties particularly focused on areas of central London, but the vast majority of homebuyers in our constituencies across the country were better off as a result of the changes.

Since becoming a Minister, I have asked to see the figures on transactions in the higher price brackets. There has been quite a significant amount of press coverage of that. At present, the Treasury does not believe that there has been a material change in the number of transactions at the highest price brackets, but we will continue to keep that under review, bearing in mind the public interest.

In April 2016, we introduced higher rates of stamp duty on additional properties, which was designed to tip the scales in favour of first-time buyers and away from those who want to purchase second homes or invest in buy-to-let. Of course, it is perfectly acceptable for people to want to do that. We understand that and do not want to make it impossible for people to enjoy a second home or to invest in buy-to-let property for their pension and their future or for their children and grandchildren, but we did believe that it was important to make changes to help others to get on the property ladder.

Since those changes were introduced, more than 400,000 people have bought their first home and first-time buyers make up an increasing proportion of those in the mortgaged property market. However, it remains very challenging for young people to get on the property ladder—we all acknowledge that—and therefore in 2017 we made the largest change so far, which was to remove stamp duty for first-time buyers.

At the autumn Budget, we permanently abolished stamp duty for first-time buyers who were purchasing a property for £300,000 or less. First-time buyers purchasing a house for between £300,000 and £500,000 will save £5,000 and, to ensure that the relief is targeted at those who need it the most, purchases above £500,000 will not benefit. We appreciate that in parts of the country properties are of such a high value that the benefit is more limited, but even in London the average amount of stamp duty paid by first-time buyers has been halved, so the change is still significant and an improvement for anyone trying to get into the property market for the first time.

To turn specifically to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle, his suggestion about transferring stamp duty from the buyer to the seller was thoughtful and one that, he will not be surprised to hear, the Treasury has given thought to. We have done considerable research into it. It would be a significant step and therefore one that we should take only if the benefits are clear. The legal liability for stamp duty rests with the purchaser, but evidence suggests that the cost of stamp duty is reflected in the value of the property. That is of particular concern with respect to my hon. Friend’s suggestion, because it means that switching the formal liability to the seller would be likely to have a limited effect on the overall cost of purchasing a house. My hon. Friend’s argument would have been stronger before we changed stamp duty for first-time buyers. Now the vast majority—80%—of first-time buyers have no stamp duty and 95% benefit from our changes. Before those changes, of course his proposal would have made a significant difference.

Another point, made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), with respect to those downsizing, would be of concern to us, because there might be a reason for people not to downsize when we want those who are a bit older with larger homes to consider moving into smaller homes—if they wish to, of course—freeing up properties for the next generation. We will give the suggestion thought, and I am happy to meet anyone about it, but it is not something that we are considering at present.

The other suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle, on the stamp duty land tax form, was interesting. I would like to take it up with him and hear more. I am happy to meet him with my officials to take it forward. I think Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs would be interested in considering the idea.

I have only a minute or so remaining, so I will conclude. The Treasury is extremely committed to improving the housing market. Members on all sides of the House appreciate the fact that our housing market is broken and needs fundamental reform. We see tax as an element of that, and I hope that over the past several years right hon. and hon. Members have seen a number of significant interventions to make that better. One argument is that we now need to move into a period of stability with respect to stamp duty, so that those selling and buying homes and those operating in the market have the confidence to make choices in the future. We will, however, consider future options, and we will do everything we can with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that we continue to increase the supply of homes throughout the country, particularly focused on first-time buyers.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Tuesday 16th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)]

3. What recent discussions he has had with the airline industry on air passenger duty.

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

Her Majesty’s Treasury regularly engages with the airline industry on air passenger duty. At the autumn Budget, we froze 2019-20 APD rates at 2018-19 levels for all short-haul passengers and for long-haul economy passengers. That provided a freeze for 95% of passengers.

[Sir Hugo Swire]

May I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment? He has done extremely well.

Airlines such as Flybe, which is based at Exeter airport in my constituency, undertake a disproportionate number of domestic flights. As my hon. Friend will be aware, domestic flights, unlike international ones, are currently hit twice by APD—at both take-off and landing. Treasury officials, of course, will tell a new Minister that any change is impossible and hide behind EU rules, but as we exit the EU, will my hon. Friend look at addressing that anomaly?

[Robert Jenrick]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I pay tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), who was well regarded across the House.

As my right hon. Friend says, the Government are unable to exempt the return leg of a domestic flight. Of course, as we leave the European Union that could change, and the Treasury will keep the issue under consideration. We certainly recognise the economic significance of regional airports such as my right hon. Friend’s in Exeter. For that reason, we have kept short-haul rates frozen since 2012. In 2015, of course, we took the significant step of exempting children.

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

The Government’s own figures show that Newcastle airport will be most affected by any cuts to air passenger duty or air departure tax in Scotland. The continued uncertainty about this issue is also incredibly damaging. From his newly elevated position, will the Minister tell us what progress has been made on the issue? Is he in a position to confirm how English regional airports will be protected from the effects of any cuts?

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Lady is right to raise this issue, as Newcastle airport and others are very important to the economy of the north-east. As she heard during my response to the previous question, EU rules prevent us from changing the rules regarding the return leg of a domestic flight. We will keep the matter under consideration. We have, of course, taken other important steps, such as keeping the rates frozen and exempting children. It is worth saying that air passenger duty raises more than £3 billion a year, so it makes an important contribution to public services.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

There would be substantial benefits from reducing or removing air passenger duty, including GDP growth, job creation, and an impact on trade, foreign direct investment and tourism. The duty particularly distorts trade between airports in Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. There was a commitment in the Budget to have a review of air passenger duty. Will the Minister give us an update on where that review is?

[Robert Jenrick]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. As he knows, in the autumn statement we committed to a review of not just air passenger duty, but the impact of VAT on tourism in Northern Ireland. That review is under way and will report back in time for this year’s autumn Budget.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

4. If he will bring forward legislative proposals in respect of the imposition of inheritance tax on direct personal donations to campaign groups involved in referendums.

--- Later in debate ---

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

8. What assessment he has made of the effect of autumn Budget 2017 on public spending in Wales.

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

Decisions announced by the Chancellor in the autumn Budget resulted in an increase of £1.2 billion to the Welsh Government’s budget. For the first time, this included more than £65 million thanks to the new Barnett boost agreed with the Welsh Government’s fiscal framework. This ensures that the Welsh Government’s block grant will increase in real terms over the spending review period.

[Jonathan Edwards]

The headline-grabbing announcement in the Budget was the alleged £1.2 billion uplift to the Welsh public finances, which the Minister has just repeated in his answer. It was an example of financial trickery best suited to the Foreign Secretary’s big red buses. Is it not the case that more than half that money will be in the form of repayable loans—in other words, financial transactions?

[Robert Jenrick]

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s analysis or with his slightly cavalier attitude to £650 million of taxpayers’ money. This money is at the disposal of the Welsh Government and can be used for important things such as helping to support businesses and helping people to get on to the property ladder through Help to Buy.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

Given that the tolls on the Severn crossing went down last week for the first time ever, there is going to be greater demand for use of the M4. However, since 2012 the Labour Welsh Government have done nothing about using the public money available to them to extend the M4. Is it not the case that public money should be spent on that, and that it has been made available to Wales from this Government?

[Robert Jenrick]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. As I said in my answer to the previous question, we have increased the budget for the Welsh Government. How they choose to spend that money, and how wisely they do that, is another question.

[Mr Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

9. What progress is being made on creating jobs and reducing unemployment.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

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

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

In 2010, tax receipts from the financial services sector amounted to about £53 billion; today they amount to £71 billion. We are making the banks and the wider financial services sector pay their fair share, but we do not want a race to the bottom. We want the sector to be competitive, because tens of thousands of well-paid, highly skilled jobs throughout the country—not just in London but in cities like Nottingham, near my constituency—depend on it.

[Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The additional tax raised from the banks amounts to £9 billion between 2010 and the present time, and a further £25 billion is projected over the current forecast period. Far from taxing the banks less over time—as, no doubt, the Opposition will shortly have us believe we have done—we are securing more tax revenues than we did in the past.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

Will the Minister re-emphasise the point he has just made: that the practical effect for our constituents of the move he is making today will make it much more attractive for important British international banks such as HSBC and Standard Chartered, who have a choice of locations in which to be registered—HSBC recently considered whether to move to Hong Kong or even mainland China—to remain in the City of London?

[Mel Stride]

As is so often the case, my hon. Friend has hit an important nail on the head: in terms of improving our competitiveness, it is clearly deeply unattractive to have a situation where UK-domiciled banks are being taxed on their foreign operations whereas foreign banks are not being taxed by us on their foreign operations, but are only being taxed on their operations in the UK. He is right that the future of HSBC, Standard Chartered, Barclays and other banks, who make a huge contribution to our tax-take and our economy, are much more secure if they are not being disadvantaged by being taxed on overseas operations unlike their foreign counterparts. As part of these changes, the schedule also provides for a reduction in the amount on which the levy is chargeable for certain investments a UK bank makes in an overseas subsidiary.

I shall now briefly turn to the amendments tabled by Opposition Members. For the reasons I have described, we believe that a combination of taxing profits and balance-sheets is the most effective and stable basis for raising revenue from the banking sector. The bank payroll tax was intended as a one-off tax; even the last Labour Chancellor pointed out that it could not be repeated without significant tax avoidance. I can assure the House that information about the bank levy will continue to be published as part of the normal Budget cycle. Official statistics are published on the pay-as-you-earn income tax and national insurance contributions, bank levy, bank surcharge, and corporation tax receipts from the banking sector as a whole. The Government have published a detailed tax information and impact note on the proposed changes introduced by part 1 of the schedule. We have also published information about the overall Exchequer impact of the 2015 package of measures for banks, and these figures have been certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility.

Finally, new clause 2 proposes that HM Revenue and Customs should publish a register of tax paid by individual banks under the levy. Taxpayer confidentiality is an essential principle for trust in the tax system, and HMRC does not publish details of the amount of tax paid by any individual business. While this Government continue to consider measures to support transparency over businesses’ tax affairs, we must balance that with maintaining taxpayer confidentiality in order to sustain public confidence in our tax system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

I thank my hon. Friend for his advice, which I will take.

In 2017, we are still feeling the effects and economic consequences of the actions of the banks. Every day we are told by the Government that there is no money to invest and that austerity must continue, yet the Government have gone out of their way to undermine any remuneration from the banks that caused this sorry state of affairs in the first place.

Once again, the Opposition’s ability to amend this Bill is hamstrung and limited by the Government’s continued use of arcane and outdated parliamentary procedure. In football parlance, not only have they moved the goalposts but they have put boards across the goalmouths so that the Opposition cannot score any goals—a recreant act, if ever there was one, from a pusillanimous Government frightened of their own shadow.

By tabling new clause 1, we seek, first, to require the Government to carry out a review of the bank levy, including its effectiveness in relation to its stated aims—Sir Roger, you will be glad that we are back on the bank levy. Secondly, we seek to establish the extent of the revenue effects of the cuts made in 2015. Thirdly, we seek to calculate how much would have been raised if the Government had stuck with Labour’s bankers bonus tax. Let us have the comparisons.

Such a report would shine a light on the Government’s malpractice in cutting frontline services while offering tax giveaways to the banks. It would require the Minister to reassure the House directly that certain banking practices are not simply in hibernation. “Once bitten, twice shy” is a fair assessment of most people’s views, including many in the sector itself. A by-product of the process would be to show that far more would have been raised under Labour’s bankroll tax.

We are also calling for a separate review of the changes introduced by clause 33 and schedule 9 and their overall impact on revenue and risky behaviour. That review would make the Treasury explain the rationale for further limiting the scope of the bank levy and forgoing billions of pounds while, at the same time, pushing for more cuts to departmental budgets and frontline services.

It is, of course, unsurprising and indicative of the Government that they have failed to keep track of the banks that regularly pay the levy and a full list of what they have paid. That is why, in the name of transparency—a very novel concept for the Government—we would ensure fiscal accountability. The Opposition have tabled an amendment that seeks to create a public register for the bank levy.

The Minister talks about commercial sensitivity. Well, that old chestnut is brought out time after time. When we supported the banks with billions upon billions of pounds, nobody talked about commercial sensitivity then. In this particular case, I am sure many in the banking sector would be happy to have such transparency. It is shocking that the Government consider this tax cut for the wealthy few to be a good use of nearly £5 billion.

Alongside demanding that the Government change course, we must also understand the impact of the lower levy rate introduced in 2011, as well as the revenue effects of lowering the levy in 2015. That, among other things, is what our amendment seeks to tease out.

[Robert Jenrick]

I am confused by the hon. Gentleman’s position on the bank levy. He says that he voted against it in 2011 because it was set at too low a threshold, but between 2011 and 2015 the then Chancellor raised the bank levy seven times and, on each occasion, the Labour party voted against it. Why did it do that?

[Peter Dowd]

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman goes back and reads Hansard when it is printed to see exactly what I said.

Once we can see the true costs of the Government’s policies, we can grasp the extent of the choices they have been making and how they have favoured a small, wealthy group over the many citizens of this country time and again. Let us look at the example of children’s services. Only a week before the Budget, the chief executive of Action for Children, Sir Tony Hawkhead, described the “devastating cost” of cuts to children’s services, which he said have been left on a “dangerous and unstable” footing. These prevention and protection services are vital to provide proper care for our nation’s children, and the banking levy could help with that, yet we have seen deep cuts of 55% of funding for local government and a gap of £2 billion in funding by 2020.

There is widespread talk and reports of local councils having to seek permission from the Government to raise council tax to cover the costs, in effect, of cuts to the bank levy—this money may have been available for children. So cuts to bankers and council tax up seems to be what we are being told today. As these services have been decimated over the past seven years, we have seen a doubling of serious child protection cases and twice the number of children put into care protection plans. Last year, 70,000 children were placed into care. The support for foster care, adoption and Sure Start children’s centres has all been reduced. Youth centres are closing and parenting classes are being axed. Short breaks for disabled children, provided by local councils to give their parents a little respite from full-time care, are being taken away and are under strain.

Taken together, those cuts mean that some of the most vulnerable children in our country are paying the price for seven years of failing economic strategy. When are the Government going to change their strategy? It is still shocking to see the Government put the needs of others ahead of those of our youngest citizens, who are picking up the bill for austerity

Tax Avoidance and Evasion

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Tuesday 14th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

It is also not in the interests of the many developing countries that lose more tax through tax avoidance than we do in proportion to their budgets.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

The right hon. Lady’s central contention is that those territories should publish open registers of beneficial ownership. First, does she acknowledge that the United Kingdom is now one of the only countries in the world to do so, as a result of action by this Government? That was a huge achievement on the UK’s part. Secondly, in an international context, virtually no other major developed country in the world has done it. The state of Delaware, in which 90% of US corporations are registered—

[Mr Speaker]

Order! When I say “order”, the hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. I do not wish to be unkind to him. He is always very fluent, but he usually takes too long, and that was not just too long; it was far too long.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The first of my two points was about trying to tackle head-on the counter-arguments that are sometimes made by some territories.

On tackling and having zero tolerance towards corruption, in 2010, when I had responsibility for international development, we targeted funding specifically at the City of London police, which has expertise on pursuing and recovering stolen funds. We should do as much of that as possible.

[Robert Jenrick]

I agree with a great deal of what my right hon. Friend says. Given that the majority of the economy of the British Virgin Islands, in particular, is in financial services and the islands have recently been completely devastated by hurricanes, is now the right time to be imposing on the islanders rather than working with them?

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point in view of the humanitarian crisis that is afflicting the BVI, which are of course one of the most transparent of these havens. What I hope will be a temporary crisis in the BVI following the hurricane damage should not in any way detract from my argument that, in a defined, perhaps short, period of time, these open registers are essential.

Paradise Papers

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Monday 6th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

The Finance Bill, which has just gone through the House, contains important provisions to clamp down on those who enable tax avoidance—the category of individual and company to which the hon. Lady refers—and those are some pretty stiff penalties.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm my understanding that the profits of the Duchy of Lancaster are used exclusively for official purposes, that its investment board is at arm’s length from the Government and that if anyone wants to question who was overseeing the investment board at the time of any suspicious transactions, they should go and see the Labour Ministers at the time?

[Mel Stride]

The accounts of the Duchy of Lancaster are readily available, transparent and audited in the normal fashion, and there has been no suggestion to date, as far as I am aware and certainly not in the television programme last night, of any mischief related to any aspect of its dealings.

Finance Bill

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Tuesday 31st October 2017 Commons Chamber

[John Redwood]

There is a huge difference between breaking the law and living within the law. However, where Governments of both persuasions and the coalition have put provisions into the tax code that encourage people to save or invest in a certain way to pay less tax, that surely is the will of Parliament and the will of those parties, and we cannot object if people and institutions take advantage of it. The right thing to do—as I think the Labour party is now trying to do in some ways—in respect of rich people who come to our country to undertake part of their affairs but not all of their affairs, is to ensure that we have settled on a law that we think is fair and then to enforce it. Obviously we should take a tough line were any of them to break our law, but we cannot object if they take advantage of measures that have been put into the tax code to encourage certain kinds of investing or saving behaviour, in exactly the same way that most MPs take advantage of the avoidance provisions to save through a pension scheme or an ISA.

The subject of this debate is whether the assets of very rich people—often productive assets that they have saved for, earned and accumulated before they came to the UK—are a suitable object of taxation if they choose to do some things in the UK in respect of which they are clearly subject to our law codes and have to pay our taxes. In the past, Labour Governments as well as Conservative Governments have taken the pragmatic view that there is an advantage in very rich entrepreneurial successful people coming to our country setting up businesses, making investments here and committing part of their capital to our country; that we will tax that fairly in exactly the same way that you or I would be taxed, Mr Speaker, if we were making such investments on a much smaller scale; and that that is fair to us as taxpayers and investors, but that it is not our business to try to tax their assets and income accumulated or earned elsewhere that they have established by other means before, which are presumably being taxed in those other countries and would normally be governed as well by some kind of double taxation arrangement or agreement.

I would therefore just say to Labour Members who think there is a huge crock of gold here, which for some unknown reason successive Labour, coalition and Conservative Governments have been reluctant to pluck, that maybe they did not do it in the past because there is not, and that maybe we are quite close to that point. If we go further and further encroach on the legitimate income and assets of foreigners coming here, which are asset and income not actually in this country, we might get to the point where more of them say, “I’d rather go somewhere else. Plenty of other countries around the world would actually welcome the money, investment and income I wish to spend, which is going to be taxable in that country. If they are prepared to not tax my other income and assets elsewhere, then they will have the benefit of me rather than not.”

The art of taxation is finding the right balance, so the host country gets enough out of it and where there is obviously a fair imposition of tax on anything they do in that country alongside fellow residents of that country, while not deterring so many that we are no longer a great centre for people with money, investment and talent who would otherwise come here.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we do not make these decisions in isolation? We are competing with other countries, which might also like to host very rich individuals and investors. While we in the UK are making the climate more hostile and difficult to raise more money for our public services, the opposite is true in many other countries. In the EU, Malta, Portugal and, most prominently, Italy are moving in the other direction and creating their own non-dom regimes to draw away such individuals from the United Kingdom.

[John Redwood]

My hon. Friend anticipates my next point. We live in a global world. The richer people are, the more footloose they can be, and the better the tax and legal advice they can get. Most of them want to obey the law in the country they choose to live in and the countries they choose to operate in—they usually operate in several countries not just one, which creates genuine definitional problems about where they are truly resident and where is their main centre—and they will compare all the time, on good advice, the different regimes available. It is quite obvious that in the EU there is a lot of jealousy of London and the wider UK’s success in attracting talent and investment from around the world. As my hon. Friend says, regimes are being created in to tempt people away by giving them a better deal in other European countries.

I was about to draw the attention of the House to hugely important debates about to be undertaken in both the Senate and the House of Representatives in the United States of America. New York and other great centres are already very attractive magnets for rich people and large-scale investors. They are suggesting that they might take their top rate of tax down from 39.6% to 35%, simplify their income tax brackets from seven to just three, and take their corporation tax rate down from a very high headline 35% to an effective rather lower rate of 20% or even lower, because they are very serious about becoming tax competitive again. They will be a lure, just as surely as some European countries on the continent are trying to be more of a lure.

The Opposition would be well advised to understand how global the world is, how dynamic it is, and how, to maximise tax revenue, there is a need to set ways of taxing and rates of taxation that enable people to stay and pay.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. She can rest assured that she is always welcome in Brentwood. There will always be a place next to me in the teashop where we can sit down to discuss exactly why Brentwood is such a wonderful place for women to work, raise their families and be part of the community.

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct that we have to get the balance right if we are to maximise the tax take for the Treasury, and it is only through that tax take that we will be able to fund our world-class public services. An attempt to do anything more would undoubtedly mean that less would be available for our police services, health service and education system. Our constituents—our citizens—would then all suffer, so it is absolutely essential that we get the balance right. I do not believe that we do that if we actively discourage successful, wealthy business people from bringing their money here so that they can invest in our country. As my right hon. Friend points out, it is by getting the balance right that the Treasury, under the great guidance of my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary and his predecessors, has managed to bring in an extra £160 billion since 2010 and to narrow the tax gap to an historically low level. That is a great achievement.

[Robert Jenrick]

I would like to put this into perspective so that our constituents can appreciate our achievements on the tax gap. Our tax gap is 6%, but the gap is 34% in Italy. If the European Union wants to tackle any tax gaps, it should look at other European countries. The tax gap in the United States is 19%, so a 6% tax gap here represents a huge achievement by this Government.

[Alex Burghart]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing those figures to the House. Our extraordinarily impressive figure illustrates the achievements of successive Conservative Chancellors in their work to improve the situation that they inherited in 2010.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) raised an extremely important point about timing. Do we really want a review to kick in just as the Brexit process is reaching its climax? With all due respect to Opposition Members, I do not think that they have really thought about that.

This has been my first Finance Bill and I have enjoyed everything about it immensely. I have even enjoyed the speeches made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd). I have enjoyed his panache, his dapper dress sense and his ties, which make me feel slightly underdressed. In Committee, he enlightened us with his knowledge of Plutarch and made reference to the Beatles. I believe that he referred to Plutarch’s discussion of Pyrrhus’s victory over the Romans, which led to Pyrrhus saying, “One more such victory and we are lost.” Were new clause 1 to be agreed to, it would be a pyrrhic victory of great consequence. It would put billions of pounds of Treasury revenue at risk, which would in turn put our public services at risk. That would make my constituents very angry.

I know that the hon. Member for Bootle is fond of the Beatles, as am I. We have already had a comic turn from one Essex MP today. The House might recall that, once upon a time, John Lennon was asked why the Beatles were the greatest band in the world. He said it was because Paul McCartney was the greatest singer-songwriter in the world and because George Harrison was the greatest guitarist in the world. The interviewer said, “What about Ringo? Isn’t he the greatest drummer in the world?” Mr Lennon replied, “He’s not even the greatest drummer in the Beatles.”

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Taxes on Small Businesses

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Wednesday 18th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) for bringing this matter to the House’s attention. It is an incredibly important subject.

Like a number of hon. Members in the Chamber today, I came to the House having run a business. Not only was I involved in running businesses, but more importantly, I grew up—indeed, spent most of my life from the age of four—involved to a greater or lesser extent in a family business. Having seen a business founded and run from a kitchen table and known that the roof above your head was on the line when the cash flow was short or times were difficult gives you a respect for small business people and entrepreneurs that never leaves you. That helped to forge my politics and make me a Conservative, because it is the Conservative party that has always respected small business and sought to use what levers we have, including the tax system, to incentivise small business people and entrepreneurs, to reward enterprise and to focus enterprise on the things that really matter, not just for them but for the benefit of everyone—the whole of society. I am talking about innovation, research, development and building a vibrant economy that works for everyone.

I want to talk about a few of the tax changes that have been made since the Government first came to power in 2010, which I know, from the small businesses that I speak to in my constituency, and from talking to the businesses that I have been involved in and even my own family business, have made a huge difference. There are the obvious ones to the headline taxes that we have made such a big issue of over the years. I am thinking of the reduction in corporation tax, which has fallen to 19% and will fall again to 17%. That is an incredibly important, landmark reduction in taxes that affects, of course, big businesses and corporations, but also small businesses that prosper—the directors, founders and shareholders want to see a reward for their hard work. That tax would go up under Labour. The Labour party’s manifesto, or the small print of it at least, said that the small profits tax—for those below £300,000—would rise to 21% in 2020-21.

Capital gains tax is another tax that we have reduced. We increased it initially, at the beginning of the coalition Government, and then accepted that we had made a mistake and brought it down again. We have not brought it to as low a level as applied under the last Labour Government, but we have brought it down, which benefits businesses of all kinds. I would be very concerned if a change in Government led to its rising again.

However, taxes that get far less publicity in the main political debate are perhaps my priority. I am talking about those that, in the long term, benefit innovation, investment and research and development. The most obvious one that I have seen succeed is the research and development tax credit. That tax credit enables businesses large and small to claim back against profits, following the latest development, an extra 130% of their qualifying costs. That was on top of the 100% that we had had in the past, meaning a 230% tax credit for research and development by a business. In fact, there is a tax credit even if there is a loss by that business. That is incredibly generously defined and implemented by the Treasury, particularly for small businesses. Businesses involved in manufacturing—like the business that I have been involved in, through my family, for many years—with a high research and development capability, can usually see tax bills as low as 10%. In fact, it is unusual for a business like that—an SME manufacturing business—to have a tax bill above 10%. That is incredibly important because those are the businesses that, across the House, we care about and want to succeed in this country.

The patent box regime introduced by the last Chancellor of the Exchequer for corporation tax relief is incredibly important. It has led to tax reductions for all businesses that develop new products in manufacturing, software and other areas, and has been generously defined so that SMEs can access it and benefit from it without needing the finest lawyers or tax accountants. The innovative businesses that we want to prosper in our constituencies would struggle to pay more than 10% tax as a result of corporation tax, R and D tax credits and the patent box regime. I am concerned that a future Labour Government would abolish those incredibly important reliefs. Will the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), comment on the Labour party’s position on the reliefs that businesses the length and breadth of the country rely on?

Entrepreneurs’ relief has increased the lifetime limit on gains for entrepreneurs, which I think was £1 million when we came into government, to £10 million—a lot of money to almost anyone, and certainly to people in my Nottinghamshire constituency. Entrepreneurs of any scale can use that relief to ensure that their lifetime’s hard work—the business that they have built up—can be used for their pension or passed on to the next generation. Someone who owns a business, whether it is a highly successful tech business worth tens of millions or a florist’s in Newark that they have devoted their entire life to, can be sure that when they sell it, they will gain the benefit. Enterprise and hard work have their reward. Above all, the entrepreneurs we care about most in society—the ones who do not take out the profits but reinvest them in their business—can have the confidence that they will be able to use that business in retirement as their pension or nest egg. I ask the shadow Minister what the Labour party intends to do about that relief.

For seven years, we have worked hard to close loopholes that were exploited by private equity and others to direct those funds to people that none of us in this House would want them to go to. We want to ensure that genuine entrepreneurs have the confidence not to take out money from their business, which they could easily do when it becomes successful, but to continue to reinvest it and to ensure that that business succeeds. Reinvestment involves employing more people, expanding, creating new opportunities and driving the economy forward. We should be proud of entrepreneurs’ relief and promote it to entrepreneurs, whatever the size of their business, in our constituency.

Although we have cut corporation tax to the lowest level imposed in any major developed economy, the level of business property taxes is still among the highest in the OECD, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives. I agree with him about the effect of business property taxes, not just on the obvious business owners, such as shopkeepers in the small market towns of Newark and Southwell, but on start-ups; on businesses that need a workshop or retail outlet before they build a presence online; on offices; on manufacturers who want factory space; and on businesses making their first expansion by purchasing new sites and renting new premises. Those businesses suffer most from this, and the Treasury should do further work to understand how we can move into the 21st century. Business is going online and we need a level playing field.

All these lower taxes for businesses are in the debit column, but there are some items in the credit column. The introduction of the national living wage means that small businesses must pay their staff more and make pension contributions. There are enhanced benefits; most recently, the Government announced extra bereavement leave. All these policies have almost universal support in this House. I support them all. Most small business owners want their workers to be treated well, paid the living wage, and so on. However, the policies have put pressure on small businesses, particularly in constituencies such as Newark that have high numbers of catering businesses and small retailers.

There is a fine balance between the pressures that important social changes have brought to our small businesses, and the policies that this Government have introduced, and that we support. If we want to ensure that the living wage continues to rise and working people are better supported, we need low taxes on the other side—corporation tax, capital gains tax, entrepreneurs’ relief, the patent box regime. We need the balance to work in favour of entrepreneurs and risk-takers—the businessmen and businesswomen of this country. That is why we should be deeply concerned about a Labour Government, who would not only follow our lead on social reform and treating workers as they should be treated, but risk diminishing and undermining the tax reforms and reductions that small businesses have come to rely on. That would put the enterprising people of all our constituencies at great risk. Enterprise should have its reward. I believe the Conservative party will always provide that reward for the hard-working constituents we represent.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

I am pleased that the Minister has brought that to my attention. I bring to his attention Labour’s tax enforcement programme, as well as our manifesto, “Funding Britain’s Future”, and our industrial strategy. I am sure that the Minister has read those avidly and will no doubt revisit them.

SMEs find it increasingly difficult to operate around the tricky and ever-changing tax law while HMRC has been directed to crack down hard on them. The likes of Martin McTague, policy director at the Federation of Small Businesses, recently accused HMRC of going for the soft underbelly by tackling SMEs over tax avoidance and evasion rather than showing the same energy in confronting larger companies, and arguably, by underfunding and not resourcing appropriately.

[Robert Jenrick]

Will the hon. Gentleman answer the point that I made in my remarks about why the Labour manifesto included an increase in corporation tax for small businesses? If it cares about small businesses rather than large ones, why increase business profits tax for them?

[Peter Dowd]

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the totality of the document, about the whole environment in which small businesses would operate. It is not a question of one element, but the total environment. That is the point I am trying to get across. It is not one specific thing, such as tax for small or large businesses, but the complete environment in which businesses must operate that we must consider. The current environment is not the most conducive to business for SMEs, in my humble opinion. That is my view; Members may agree with it or not.

We are committed to putting small and medium-sized businesses at the heart of our economic policy. We value them.

Finance Bill

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. That is why the Government have been clear through our tax planning and the information that we have been signalling to the marketplace. Certainty for business is extremely important, which is why we have lowered corporation tax and have stuck to that position. We are making considerable progress, and I will take my hon. Friend’s point on board.

In short, the Bill continues our hard work to drive down the tax gap and ensures that we will provide a fair and competitive tax system. The other part of the deal is that those taxes must be paid.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

On that point, will my right hon. Friend re-emphasise the fact that the tax gaps for large and small companies have fallen by 40% and 50% respectively since we took over from the Labour Government?

[Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend is correct. The tax gap currently stands at 6.5% for all taxes, which is lower than in any year under the previous Labour Government. In fact, the tax gap was 8.3% in 2005-06, so we are the party that has been bearing down on the tax gap.

This Bill introduces significant changes to the clauses in one area that the Government intended to legislate for before the general election. Many businesses of all types and sizes have already gone digital. They do their banking online, pay their bills online, market their products and services online, and buy what they need online. Making tax digital is the natural next step. It will not only make tax administration more convenient for our businesses, but it will reap rewards for the Exchequer. Avoidable tax errors under the current system cost us almost £9 billion in 2014-15. That is more than double the cost of running HMRC and the Treasury combined.

Many Members, including members of the Treasury Committee, as well as business owners, agents and stakeholder groups have had concerns about whether all businesses would be ready for this development. Well, we listened to that feedback, and one of my early decisions as Financial Secretary was to amend the timetable for delivering Making Tax Digital. Digital record keeping will now only be a requirement for businesses with a turnover above the VAT threshold, and they will only have to provide updates on their VAT liabilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

Being young at heart, my hon. Friend subscribes to NME, so will he re-emphasise the exact words of the Leader of the Opposition: “I will sort it”? What could be clearer than “I will sort it”?

[Charlie Elphicke]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Leader of the Opposition’s words were, “I will sort it.” I will give way to the hon. Member for High Peak (Ruth George) for a third time, if she wants to make yet another valiant intervention, to explain what “I will sort it” means. I am sure she is able to explain that away, too. I think it is very clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in the finance debate today on an important set of measures that will take the economy and the public finances forward in the right direction. Like other Members who have spoken today, I wish that the Finance Bill were shorter, given the relatively small number of measures, and that the effort that had begun under the last Chancellor, George Osborne, with the Office of Tax Simplification could continue and bear fruit. Budgets are becoming too complicated and too long, and the tax code ever longer, leaving small and medium-sized businesses struggling to cope with compliance. Even our largest companies spend far too much time in their board meetings discussing compliance and far too little time on innovation and how to move forward.

I am inspired by Paul Ryan in the United States, who suggested creating a tax return on a postcard for 95% of American citizens, and I would like us to move in that direction. In truth, no Chancellor since Nigel Lawson has taken tax simplification seriously. He was the last Chancellor to say that one in, one out should be our policy for creating new taxes. Perhaps that is something that we could take forward as we gain complete control over our own laws as we leave the European Union.

There are three points that I wish to make. First, following on from my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O'Brien), I would like to say a few words about our record on tax evasion and avoidance. There is a lot of misinformation about, and much needs to be said about how successful the Government’s record really has been in this area. There has been a breakdown of trust. This is a question of trust, and the antidote to mistrust is not moralising or phoney outrage, but credible action, and that is what the Government have set out to do since 2010.

When we came to power in 2010, the tax gap was rising in almost every area, particularly in corporate taxes. Today, in almost every area, it has fallen dramatically. Corporate taxes for large companies have fallen by 50%, and for small companies by 40%. In house ownership, stamp duty has fallen by 40%. These are significant achievements. They have been hard won by measures such as the ones in this Budget—I am talking about complex measures produced by Treasury officials who have gone to a great deal of trouble to work out how these falls can be achieved in a way that would simply never have happened under the last Labour Government. We have elevated the issue internationally—from David Cameron raising it and making it the centrepiece of the G8 summit to other opportunities—so that the UK is perceived internationally as a world leader in the area.

When the all-party parliamentary corporate governance group brought Leo Strine, the chief secretary of the Supreme Court of Delaware—the jurisdiction in which 90% of US companies are registered—to speak in the House of Commons, he said that there is no way that the state of Delaware would implement any of the major measures that we have. He particularly mentioned the most significant achievement: the creation of the world’s first public beneficial register of ownership. That was a significant step forward. There were legitimate arguments against it, including the invasion of privacy, but the Government took it forward none the less. It is a real achievement, which, like the state of Delaware, no other country—certainly not our major international competitors—is looking to implement. We have the general anti-avoidance legislation. We were also the leaders in the base erosion and profit shifting project under the previous Chancellor, as we are under the current one.

The results are stark, with major decreases in the tax gap of up to 50%. Had the tax gap continued on the trajectory left by the last Labour Government, it would be £47 billion and the public purse would be £11 billion the poorer. Instead, it is at its lowest ever level and is one of the lowest in the world. The way in which we report the tax gap is certainly one of the most transparent and best documented of any major country. That is a tribute to HMRC, the Treasury and successive Chancellors. We should be proud of that record and not spread misinformation that things are getting worse. As we now see internationally, the UK truly is leading the world as a result of these changes.

My second brief point is a more direct one about the Labour party and its approach not just to the Finance Bill, but more generally. The Labour party is asking the public to worship a false god. Labour says that taxing our businesses and entrepreneurs much more will result in a higher tax yield. That is not true. The richest 1% of this country pay 27% of all the income tax collected. The richest 5% pay 45%. Until the eve of Gordon Brown’s defeat in 2010, even he resisted raising the top rate of tax. He knew about getting our richest and most successful businesses and entrepreneurs to shoulder the greatest share of the burden, which they did—their share of tax rose under Labour as it has under the Conservatives—but it was precisely his hunger for more tax to spend and more money for the Treasury that led him to refuse to raise the top rate of income tax and to increase corporation taxes further.

We only have to look back within my lifetime to see the wealth creation unleashed when Nigel Lawson reduced the top rate to 40%. The Government then profited by taking a smaller slice of a much greater pie. The system that the Conservatives left to Labour in 1997 was more progressive and redistributive than the system that we inherited back in 1979 from Callaghan and Healey. In 1978-79, the top 1% of the population paid 11% of taxes, and the top 5% paid 25%. When we left office in 1997, the top 1% paid 21% of income tax—almost twice as much—and the top 5% paid 40%. The lowest 50% of the population saw the amount of tax they paid in that era fall from 20% to 11%. Lower tax rates mean higher tax yields. Higher taxes on the better off or on business for purely political reasons will not lead to a fairer tax system, even by the left’s own definition.

This is the paradox: to get people and businesses to pay a higher share of tax, we usually have to lower their tax rate, and so it has been with corporation tax in our experience in the last seven years. UK corporation tax receipts have surged to a record high during the last financial year, as the main rate has fallen from 30% in 2008 to 19% today. By reducing the rate and by having a Government with a credible economic policy, we have shown that the UK is open for business, and we have attracted international businesses from around the world that wish to open their headquarters and move a greater share of their operations here. Now, with heightened uncertainty over Brexit and a possible net outflow of businesses and investment, we need this policy more than ever.

Higher taxes on companies and individuals and their homes, as proposed under a Labour Government, will mean lower tax receipts and less redistribution.

[Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, at a time where there is uncertainty in the business community, not least because of Brexit, talking about raising corporation tax and taxation generally, as the Opposition are doing, is a mammoth disincentive for companies thinking of relocating and growing their business here at this dangerous time?

[Robert Jenrick]

My right hon. Friend makes exactly the point I have been advancing: not only is the approach the Opposition are taking counterintuitive, because the evidence suggests that higher corporation tax will yield less money for our public services and fewer opportunities to redistribute taxes to the most vulnerable in society, but it will send a signal that Britain is no longer open for business, which is exactly the opposite signal from the one we want to be sending to the world at this time. The point is that that is being done by the Labour party, against the evidence and for purely party political, ideological reasons.

Margaret Thatcher once said that the left would

“rather that the poor were poorer, provided that the rich were less rich.”—[Official Report, 22 November 1990; Vol. 181, c. 448.]

Today’s Labour Members would rather that there was less money for public services, less wealth and less opportunity, so long as they could claim that they were punishing the wealthy from the comfort of their Islington townhouses.

The public should be under no illusions: the Labour party’s economic plans will not bring in the tax receipts it claims they will, will not fund the commitments it claims to make, including on tuition fees, and will pose a real risk to public services. The only tax receipts that we can be certain will increase under a Labour Government led by the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) will be the air passenger duties levied on the businessmen and women—the entrepreneurs and innovators —stampeding to leave the country after the next general election.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that every time Labour has tried tax, borrow, spend, they have left government with the country poorer and with people earning less—the wealthy and those on lower incomes? They just do not know how to run the economy.

[Robert Jenrick]

I could not agree more with my right hon. and learned Friend.

The evidence I have tried to bring forward shows that under Conservative Governments—both from 1979 to 1997, and from 2010 to the present day—the money spent on public services increased dramatically while those Governments have been able to take more tax receipts from the wealthiest in society by applying a sensible, credible economic policy and not. purely ideologically, seeking to increase taxes on the rich and our business community, which is counterproductive for everybody concerned.

In closing, I want to make a simple point about Brexit and the state of the economy. The only way Brexit can be a success is if Britain charts a course towards economic liberalism. Our survival and our success outside the European Union entail Britain becoming more competitive. We must open up markets. We must find ways of building competitive advantages, of reducing and deregulating wherever possible, of getting inward investment into the country and of embracing free trade. That means encouraging enterprise above all else.

[Sir Hugo Swire]

My hon. Friend is making some extremely good points, but the one thing he has not mentioned, which we have to address as a matter of urgency, is productivity.

[Robert Jenrick]

I quite agree. Productivity is the great challenge for us. Part of making sure we are a productive society is making ourselves the most competitive society we can be. That means being willing to embrace free enterprise, to reward success, and to lower corporation taxes––perhaps even our personal taxes as well. Doing that will require the most careful management of the public finances. It will mean real, continued effort to live within our means so that our children and grandchildren can continue to deregulate, to drive competitive advantages and to have lower taxes for their companies and businesses, unshackled from the incredible burden of paying off our national debt.

We will be somewhat more exposed to the world and to globalisation when we leave the European Union—less shielded from those economic forces—so we will need to lean into the free market to secure our future. That will mean a close regard to our competitiveness and the way that we are perceived by the rest of the world. It will mean a managed but liberal immigration policy that seeks to attract the most highly skilled people that we need—a focus on who they are and the skills they bring, not necessarily on how many—and a tone that welcomes people into this country rather than repelling them.

That requires something of everybody in this House. It requires from the Conservative party a tone on immigration that shows to the world that we are open and welcoming to the best and the brightest and an approach that embraces economic liberalism, not the interventionism that we have strayed into in recent months and years. For the Labour party, it means recognising that heirloom hard-left policies will not cut it in that environment. Labour’s refusal to accept that Britain’s future lies in economic liberalism will not work. It will set Britain up to fail, and to fail badly.