European Union (Withdrawal) Act

David Jones Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)]

It is a huge privilege to contribute to what I believe is the most significant debate to be held in this Chamber for approaching half a century. The decision we come to on its conclusion will determine nothing less than whether the United Kingdom takes its place in the world as a free and independent country once again, or whether it becomes the fragmented client of a foreign power and subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign court.

I was an enthusiastic campaigner for a leave vote in the 2016 referendum. It was clear to me then, and it is clear to me now, that at least in the part of the world that I represent there is strong support for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union. The referendum was decisive. The House has a mandate from the British people—indeed, an absolute duty—to restore British sovereignty. The way to do that is set out in article 50 of the treaty on the European Union. It shows the way. It provides that any member state wishing to leave must give notice of its desire and that at the end of a maximum period of two years the European treaties cease to apply to it.

Ceasing to be part of the EU means, essentially, ceasing to be part of the arrangements established under the European treaties, which means ceasing to be part of the single market and the customs union and, most importantly, ceasing to be subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, the institution in which the sovereignty of the EU resides. The Prime Minister acknowledged that in her excellent speech at Lancaster House last year. In that speech, she specifically rejected partial or associate membership of the EU or anything that left us “half in, half out”, as she put it. She said:

“We will not have truly left the European Union if we are not in control of our own laws.”

That speech demonstrated a perfect understanding of what it was to be part of the EU and how we should leave, but the withdrawal agreement is so utterly different from what was envisaged by the Prime Minister at Lancaster House that it is with great sadness that I must say that I cannot support it. As many other right hon. and hon. Members have set out, the key problem is of course the backstop. It is ostensibly designed to ensure that there is no hard border in Northern Ireland, but the reality as far as the United Kingdom is concerned is that we are at huge risk of remaining confined in the customs union indefinitely and consequently unable to conclude our own free trade agreements with third countries around the world. That deeply disturbing state of affairs will continue until it is replaced by an undefined political agreement, an agreement that may well never be concluded, in which case we remain in the backstop.

As it stands, the withdrawal agreement is hugely beneficial to the European Union. It preserves tariff-free access to the fifth largest economy in the world. It enables the EU to deploy the strength of the UK economy in any treaties it may wish to conclude with third countries. I have therefore no doubt that, contrary to what we have heard earlier from other hon. Members, there is every incentive for the European Union to keep the United Kingdom in the backstop. In other words, we would remain locked into this arrangement at the pleasure of the European Union. We would effectively become a client state of the European Union and our freedom to depart would be impossible. Furthermore, the agreement establishes a state of affairs under which an integral part of our sovereign territory, Northern Ireland, effectively becomes a colony of the European Union, subject in large measure to the single market and the customs union and ECJ jurisdiction, and legally semi-detached from the rest of this country. As a Unionist, I cannot support that happening to Northern Ireland any more than I could support it happening to the Isle of Wight, the Isle of Skye or the Isle of Anglesey.

This is a thoroughly bad deal. There are many aspects of concern in it, not least the £39 billion, which we would, for some reason, be paying for this false Brexit, but the single biggest objection must be that it robs the United Kingdom of its sovereignty, of its freedom of self-determination and, potentially, of a large and important part of its territory contrary to the wishes of its people. For that reason, with a heavy heart, and recognising the efforts of the Prime Minister, I am afraid to say that I cannot support the agreement and I shall be voting against it on Tuesday.

Leaving the EU: Economic Analysis

David Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 28th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Lady, but I will not confirm that, because, as I said in my last answer, the deal, as set out and elaborated upon in the political declaration, does indeed set out a spectrum of potential outcomes, so it is logical that it is that spectrum of potential outcomes that we should be modelling, and that is precisely what we have done.

[Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)]

A few minutes ago, the Prime Minister twice regaled the House with a catalogue of the economic successes that this country is currently enjoying. That success is all the more remarkable when one recalls that prior to the referendum the Treasury solemnly warned that in the event of a leave vote the country would immediately enter recession. Given the historical shakiness of Treasury forecasting, is my right hon. Friend prepared to make not only the modelling but the working assumptions applied by the Treasury available to responsible third parties, such as economists of free trade, so that they may review them and see whether they agree?

[Mel Stride]

I can reassure my right hon. Friend that, as I outlined earlier, Stephen Nickell, formerly of the OBR—an independent body—will at the behest of the Treasury Select Committee have full access to all the information, data and methodology used to produce these impact estimates, and I can assure him that officials will co-operate fully.

Exiting the EU: Costs

David Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I have been very clear with the House that we are preparing for all eventualities. Of course, looking at the specifics of those agencies is a part of that.

[Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)]

As my right hon. Friend pointed out, the Prime Minister made a fair and generous offer to the European Union in her Florence speech. Given that article 50 provides that the negotiations that are under way should take account of the future relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is high time that the European Union reciprocated and started adhering to its obligations under the treaty?

[Elizabeth Truss]

As my right hon. Friend points out, it is important that we move on to the next stage of the negotiations and talk about our long-term relationship with the European Union once we have left. That is exactly what we seek to do.

Mortgages: Eligibility

David Jones Excerpts

Monday 23rd October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and to follow the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick). I am pleased that the Petitions Committee has selected this issue for debate, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) on his opening speech.

The number of signatures on the petition and the impassioned terms in which it is phrased indicate people’s frustration and concern that a strong record of making rental payments is not taken into account when assessing creditworthiness. As my hon. Friend said, most young people’s ambition is to purchase a first home. They are frustrated that most mortgage lenders do not take applicants’ rental history into account, partly for the very good reason that credit reference agencies do not record rental payments.

A contract for the payment of rent is not a contract for credit. By and large, rent is paid in advance, frequently accompanied by a rental deposit. Nevertheless, a strong history of making rental payments on time is a good indication that an individual is capable of adhering to the discipline of making payments of sums due at the times at which they are due, which should be of interest to mortgage lenders. I therefore strongly support the proposition that credit reference agencies should record rental payments and take them into account. Not only might that assist in connection with mortgage applications, it would show a history of dependability that would open up other benefits, such as not requiring prepayment meters, making consumer credit easier, and better supporting tenants who wish to move into another rented property.

At present, only one credit reference agency, Experian, appears to have a model to enable rental payment history to be included in its credit scoring. As my hon. Friend has said, working with Big Issue Invest, Experian has developed a model called Rental Exchange, which allows large landlords—chiefly social landlords, but also private landlords with more than 100 properties—to report rental payments directly.

There are certain deficiencies in Experian’s scheme, however. The private rented sector is growing, and has now surpassed the social rented sector. The vast majority of private landlords have significantly fewer than 100 properties; indeed, research undertaken by the London School of Economics for the former Council of Mortgage Lenders found that only 7% of private landlords rented out five or more properties. If a landlord has fewer than first 100 properties, tenants who want to include their rent payment history on Experian’s credit score are required to pay their rent first to a company known as CreditLadder which my hon. Friend mentioned, which in turn pays the rent to the landlord and reports the payment to Experian.

This system raises a number of concerns. First, it introduces an additional artificial layer of bureaucracy into the relationship between landlord and tenant. Secondly, sums paid by tenants to CreditLadder are not covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme; CreditLadder’s website makes it clear that it is not regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, although sums paid to it are paid into a ring-fenced bank account. Thirdly, it is not yet clear whether payment of rent via CreditLadder will have an effect on Experian’s credit reports. CreditLadder’s website makes it clear that it will take time for Experian to create a robust credit score based on rental data; until then, it will not use the data as part of the score. CreditLadder reasonably points out that simply adding rental payments to the report will help the lender to make more informed decisions about creditworthiness.

Despite those criticisms, it is welcome that at least one credit reference agency is beginning to record rental payments. It would be good if other credit reference agencies began to follow suit. The Residential Landlords Association, which my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam mentioned and which is the leading private sector representative organisation, has suggested an alternative to CreditLadder’s means of recording timely rental payments, and I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary took account of it.

The RLA has suggested the development of a new special rental standing order form to be used in the case of rental payments. The standing order form would enable payments to be made directly by the tenant to the landlord, and at the same time it would authorise the bank to notify the credit agencies that the payment has been made. That would cut out the cumbersome middleman procedure established by CreditLadder. It would also ensure that the payment was made directly by the tenant to the landlord, obviating concerns about financial regulation, and it would retain the link between the landlord and the tenant. I urge the Government to work with credit reference agencies, the banks and indeed the RLA, with a view to developing such a form.

I also invite the Government to work with the credit reference agencies to develop a web portal to enable individual landlords to register rental data. There would be every incentive for landlords to do so, given that in due course they would be interested in establishing the creditworthiness of future tenants, who might have reported via the same means.

This debate has highlighted a significant concern among a large section of the population who have reasonable aspirations to develop an improved credit history and ultimately obtain a mortgage on their own home. The Government were entirely right in their response to the petition to say that decisions about the availability of individual mortgage loans remain commercial decisions for lenders; of course that is the case. However, the Government would do a significant service to a large section of the public if they worked with the banks, credit reference agencies and landlords to encourage a new comprehensive method of recording rental payments, which would be of huge benefit to landlords, tenants and mortgage lenders alike.