Illegal Migration

Debate between Robert Jenrick and Eddie Hughes

Tuesday 24th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Gentleman is not correct in his presentation that the UK is less generous than other European countries. Statistics are hard to compare, because we are a destination country. Many of those who come here and claim asylum stay here, while in countries elsewhere in Europe people claim in multiple locations while they are transiting through them. The most important statistic is that since 2015, the UK has issued 530,000 humanitarian visas—more than at any time in our modern history. That is a very large number of people to absorb into our communities, to support properly and to integrate, and it is one of the reasons why local authorities are under great pressure at the moment. We have to be realistic about that. It is why we have said we will put a cap on safe and legal routes, and why soon we will consult local authorities, including the hon. Gentleman’s, to determine the true capacity, so that the statements we make in this House match the reality on the ground.

[Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)]

The strain on public services caused by illegal migration is often felt the most by smaller towns, so may I ask my right hon. Friend to make such areas the focus of his efforts to close migrant hotels in the future?

[Robert Jenrick]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is undoubtedly true that communities with fewer hotels have fewer public services. It is harder for people to get around because public transport is weaker. It is therefore more impactful when the Home Office takes hotels in such places, and we should consider that as we proceed to exit hotels.

Building Safety

Debate between Robert Jenrick and Eddie Hughes

Monday 20th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Lady is right—I am concerned about the position of those leaseholders, and we will work closely with the Treasury to see whether there is a way forward. There are already examples of building owners or private finance providers bringing forward low or zero-interest loans, on a hardship basis, to help individuals who are on low incomes or without savings to make the payments required to remediate their buildings. There may be a role for the Government in ensuring that that works, that the loans are affordable, and that it is done as quickly as possible.

[Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)]

I remain a proud member of the Chartered Institute of Building. Will the Secretary of State endorse the work of the CIOB in driving up standards in construction to ensure that we build safer buildings in the future, not least with its code of quality management, which was published in September last year?

[Robert Jenrick]

I am happy to endorse that work. Our building safety regime in this country is flawed in many respects, and decades of neglect now need to be addressed. That will have to work through all parts of the system, whether Government or the construction sector, and we must ensure that builders and developers pay far more attention to quality and safety than they have done in the past. We have recently seen disturbing reports, such as the independent report on Persimmon that was published at the end of last year, and action is now required from the whole construction industry.

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

Debate between Robert Jenrick and Eddie Hughes

Tuesday 14th May 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Robert Jenrick]

If my hon. Friend is referring to the benefits system, that is completely unrelated. Contractual benefits are liable to a tax liability in addition to that—perhaps I can provide more information on that in a moment. They will be part of taxable income taken in the round, which once generated is then subject to income tax and the employer’s national insurance contribution in the final termination payment.

The effect of the change will mean that a 13.8% class 1A secondary employer’s NICs charge will be applied to income derived from a termination award that is already subject to income tax. In addition, clause 1 also includes other modifications to existing legislation that relates to employer class 1A NICs, to ensure that the new liability for termination awards works as intended. Clause 2 makes corresponding changes for Northern Ireland, ensuring that the provisions apply across the United Kingdom.

Before I address new clauses 1 and 4, let me say a few words about what clauses 1 and 2 do not do. First, they do not introduce a NICs liability on the employee—I hope we made that clear during questions this morning. There remains an unlimited employee national insurance charge exemption on termination awards. Although there is a principled case for greater simplification and alignment by applying employee NICs to that income, the Government have listened carefully to representations made during the consultation, and we believe that our approach strikes the right balance between delivering greater simplification for employers, and fairness to individuals who are undoubtedly in a difficult period of their lives: losing their jobs and having to make the necessary adjustments.

Secondly, the clauses do not reduce or seek new powers to change the existing £30,000 threshold, below which termination awards are entirely tax-free and NICs-free. As we discussed this morning, that threshold remains generous compared with those of many other countries, including the United States and Germany, which tax income linked to a termination from the very first pound. It will ensure that about 80% of awards are unaffected by clauses 1 and 2, and that awards made as statutory redundancy pay are untouched. We have no plans to lower the threshold in future. Any future Government who wished to do so would need parliamentary approval.

[Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)]

The Minister has not so far mentioned the money that the measure will raise. My understanding is that that has already been taken into account and that if we were not to proceed, the Government would need to find that money from another source. Is that correct?

[Robert Jenrick]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have said on several occasions that the measure will raise about £200 million a year. Because it was a Budget measure, it has been included in the Government’s forecasts and certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility. If any hon. Member wished to take issue with the policy, they would need to find an alternative way to raise £200 million a year, if they wanted to continue to support public services in the way that we have set out in our spending plans.

Finally, the clauses do not introduce any legislation that goes beyond mirroring the effect of the income tax rules with respect to the scope of the change. Instead, by virtue of the clause, the rules that determine liability to income tax will apply directly in calculating the amount of employer class 1A NICs payable on termination awards above £30,000. Therefore, clauses 1 and 2 simplify the tax system and reduce the incentive for manipulating payments to achieve tax advantage.

[Eddie Hughes]

I am sorry to dwell on the point, but it was raised previously. My recollection is that it would require an affirmative statutory instrument to change the £30,000 figure in future. Is that correct? The Opposition have clearly raised that concern.

[Robert Jenrick]

That is absolutely right. As I have just said, we have no intention of changing the threshold. If a future Government wished to do so, that would need to be done through an affirmative statutory instrument and the House would have the opportunity to debate it and take issue with it in the usual way, if it wanted to. We have no plans to do so; my hon. Friend is right to seek that clarification.