Leaving the EU: Customs

Lord McLoughlin Excerpts

Wednesday 16th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield]

I would, of course, and I am frankly distressed that those who favour the most destructive Brexit are so casually willing to dismiss that if it gets in the way of their objectives.

Let me return to the breadth of support for a comprehensive customs union outside the House. The director-general of the CBI, Carolyn Fairbairn, has described it as a non-ideological and practical solution. Crucially, she pointed out:

“If we don’t break the impasse on this customs decision, everybody will be affected—manufacturers, services companies, retailers. An awful lot hangs on this now.”

Her view is shared across business and the trade unions.

Those who seek the deepest possible rupture with the EU, no matter the cost, have been developing their arguments against a customs union, so let me address them. Some have warned that being in a customs union raises prices for food and clothing through the common external tariff. I hope that they will also reflect on the response of British farmers and clothes producers to their idea of unilaterally cutting our tariffs, presumably to zero.

I have also heard the absurd argument that developing countries would be disadvantaged by a customs union with the EU. Current customs arrangements serve developing countries well, as 49 of the poorest countries have tariff-free access to the EU market through the “Everything but Arms” policy. If the approach would be so damaging, perhaps the Government will explain why they propose to replicate the entire EU regime on market access for developing countries—the general system of preferences—after Brexit.

The most frequent objection, of course, is that a customs union would prevent us from signing trade deals with other countries—it would. That sounds significant, but the significance is largely symbolic. We can and do trade with non-EU countries without trade deals. The EU is our biggest trading partner, but the US is our biggest national trading partner, and that is without our having a trade deal. Some people talk about increasing trade with China once we are free of a customs union, but Germany trades four times as much with China as we do.

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

How helpful does the hon. Gentleman think that the publication of all these documents would be to the people we are trying to negotiate with?

[Paul Blomfield]

The right hon. Gentleman misses the point. He should listen to his own International Trade Secretary, who has talked clearly about a customs union not preventing us from increasing trade.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

I am deeply old-fashioned in my views, and I believe it is an enormous privilege to serve in a Cabinet. I also believe that discussions should be frank and unconstrained within the Cabinet, and that Cabinet Ministers should agree on a collective Government policy and be prepared to defend that policy in public afterwards.

[Sir Patrick McLoughlin]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if such a motion were to be passed, less would be said in Cabinet papers and they would no longer contain the same candour? That is something that we should try to get away from. We had quite a bit of it between 1997 and 2010, when decisions were not taken through collective Cabinet responsibility.

[Mr Lidington]

My right hon. Friend speaks from experience, and he is completely accurate in what he says.

The third principle was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover when he talked about international relations. All Governments have to negotiate with other sovereign Governments and with international organisations, and it is a cardinal principle of our system of government that Ministers and officials need to be able to prepare the British negotiating position in private. Indeed, as recently as December 2016, that was also the view of the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), who said:

“I fully accept that the Government will enter into confidential negotiations…I do…accept that there is a level of detail and of confidential issues and tactics that should not be disclosed, and I have never said otherwise.”—[Official Report, 7 December 2016; Vol. 618, c. 223.]

It is a source of sadness to me that he appears to have departed from that position in lending his name to the motion on the Order Paper today. I would be happy to take an intervention from him if he wishes to explain to the House why he has abandoned the view that he championed two years ago.

Capita

Lord McLoughlin Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Dowden]

I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. I know she takes a close interest in this important issue. She has raised a large number of questions, and I shall seek to address as many of them as I can. I am pleased that she has acknowledged that Capita is facing up to its problems. Indeed, that creates a contrast with Carillion. She talked about the financial situation of Carillion versus Capita. The chief executive of Capita has faced up to this and strengthened its balance sheet—it has been widely reported that Capita has more than £1 billion on its balance sheet—which shows that the situation is significantly different from that at Carillion and gives us confidence in its ability to continue to deliver services.

The hon. Lady talked about dividends. Again, as a result of this announcement, Capita will not be issuing dividends, which means that money can go back into the pension scheme, allowing £200 million extra to be spent on the company’s core services, rather than dividends. That is evidence that the chief executive has understood the position and is creating a different situation from that which pertained to Carillion. She raised an important point about the major accountancy firms, such as KPMG, involved in this market. The Financial Reporting Council is looking into this matter. We expect to hear from it in about six months, and we will, of course, respond as appropriate. On her question about a Crown representative, I can assure her that there is one in Capita.

I explained in my original answer the role of the Cabinet Office and the Government and the reason that we contract with private companies. The previous Labour Government and other Governments did the same. As has been reported many times, a third of Carillion’s live contracts were agreed by the last Labour Government, a third by the coalition and a third by the current Government. Governments do this to deliver public services. Our role, as a Government, is to ensure the continued delivery of those public services, and the test for me and my colleagues and officials in the Department is this: is the company capable of delivering those public services, and if there is a problem with the company, will those public services continue to be delivered? In respect of Carillion, Members will have seen that all those public services have continued to be delivered, and I am confident that they will continue to be delivered.

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

Will my hon. Friend look at the total contempt that the Labour party has for the private sector today? Will he take the time to publish, in due course, a full list of all the contracts with the private sector that were entered into between 1997 and 2010? That will provide a fine example of how the Labour party of today is nothing like the Labour party of that period when they were in government.

[Oliver Dowden]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. This Government, and the previous Government, have engaged with private sector companies for the delivery of public services. Gordon Brown, Labour’s last successful Prime Minister—[Interruption.] Well, he was the last Labour Member to hold the office. May I take the opportunity to correct the record on that, Mr Speaker? Gordon Brown said:

“It simply would not have been possible to build or refurbish such a number of schools and hospitals without using the PFI model.”—[Official Report, 14 November 2007; Vol. 467, c. 665.]

Why is it that we use these contractors? Because we know that they can deliver. Labour’s position is slightly confused. Is it honestly now Labour’s position that we should not use the private sector at all? Is the state going to start building roads again? Where does Labour draw the line? It is complete confusion.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord McLoughlin Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

2. Whether an ethical investment policy is in place for the Queen’s private estate.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Sir Patrick McLoughlin)]

I congratulate Her Majesty the Queen, Duke of Lancaster, and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh on their platinum wedding anniversary, and I pay tribute to their decades of public service to our country.

Her Majesty voluntarily pays tax on all income received from the duchy. The duchy’s investment strategy is based on advice and recommendations from its investment consultants.

[David Linden]

One of the revelations we saw in the Paradise papers was an investment by the royal estate in the shambolic and exploitative company BrightHouse, which preys on and exploits many of my constituents. Does the Minister understand the absolute anger in Glasgow East at that revelation, and what is he going to do about it?

[Sir Patrick McLoughlin]

The investment in BrightHouse was made through a third party, equates to £3,208 and represents 0.0006% of the duchy’s value.

[Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that some of the investments that the Opposition have talked about were made in 2005, under the previous Labour Government?

[Sir Patrick McLoughlin]

Bearing in mind what the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), said when a statement was made on the Paradise papers, perhaps he should have checked that out, because I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the last investment of this sort was made in 2005.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

Donations to political parties show stark differences between our party and the Government’s. They are dependent on the ultra-wealthy few, while our party is powered by the many. In the light of the revelation in the Paradise papers that key Tory donor Lord Ashcroft was using offshore tax havens to shelter his wealth, will the Minister and his colleagues be accepting his donations to the Conservative party?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

T4. When was the ministerial code last equality-proofed, and by whom?

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Sir Patrick McLoughlin)]

The Prime Minister has committed to reviewing the ministerial code to ensure that it remains fit for purpose, and she will update the House in due course.

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

T2. As we leave the European Union, public appointments will become more important than ever. What are the Government doing to make sure that we get a greater diversity of people appointed to public posts, especially from outside the south-east?

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord McLoughlin Excerpts

Wednesday 5th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)]

T5. Will Ministers assure the House that all relevant Government Departments will be consulted to ensure that the domestic implications of Brexit are properly considered?

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Sir Patrick McLoughlin)]

The Cabinet Office plays an important role in ensuring that Government business is effectively co-ordinated, including on important issues around Brexit. Cabinet Office Ministers are working closely with colleagues in the Department for Exiting the European Union and others across Whitehall to ensure that we get the best deal for the whole United Kingdom.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

T2. The Government’s coalition of chaos extends, unfortunately, as far as cyber-security, with responsibility shared between the Cabinet Office, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the Home Office and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Can the Minister tell me the prevalence of XP machines in the Government estate, the public sector and the private sector, and what she is doing to reduce it?

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord McLoughlin Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

T6. It is good to see the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in his place. Will he perhaps set out what his priorities will be?

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Sir Patrick McLoughlin)]

As Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, I oversee the administration of the estates and the rents of the Duchy of Lancaster. I contribute to the Government’s policy and decision-making process by attending Cabinet and attending and chairing Cabinet Committees. This role is not without precedence under both Labour and Conservative Governments.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I am pleased that the Government plan to audit racial disparities in public service outcomes, but may I ask Ministers that, in doing so, they ensure that every Department and agency uses the 2011 census classifications, which differentiate Gypsies and Travellers?

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Lord McLoughlin Excerpts

Tuesday 16th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr MacNeil]

The reason we want a fixed-term Parliament, particularly those in minority parties, who are never in the party of government in this situation—in Scotland we made sure that it is far more democratic—is not the fear of the electorate, it is the fear of the Government, using the particular wins that they have created for their own advantage in a narrow period of time. There is an advantage in a fixed-term Parliament. Some people prefer five, some people prefer four. I am in the four camp—

[The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr MacNeil]

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman when I make my own speech.

[Stephen Pound]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, because mention was made earlier—perhaps too much mention for many of us—of the American political system, where, by having fixed terms, there is permanent campaigning and fundraising, a permanence that takes away what I referred to as the glorious uncertainty borne of the possibility and potential of hearing the people’s voice. The voices of the funding committees and various other supportive bodies are heard, but that sword of Damocles, which should be hanging over the head of every politician in a modern democracy, is somehow removed, because it is winched slowly down by clockwork, instead of dangling from a piece of monofilament.

Now, I think that the right hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Mr McLoughlin) wanted to intervene.

[Mr McLoughlin]

indicated dissent.

[Stephen Pound]

Are you sure?

I hope that I have expressed tonight a sincere and heartfelt view that, just as everything must be seen whence it sprang, this Bill, which we are considering in Committee, has sprung from a coalition that is fundamentally unsound and based not on political realities but expediency. The group of proposed changes before us, which would set the date, elections and length of a Parliament, would go some way towards mitigating this—I dare not say “evil”, because that would be too strong a word—sordid, mean, pettifogging, limp, expediency of a Bill.