Public Bodies and VAT

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Wednesday 17th May 2023 Westminster Hall

[George Eustice]

My right hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point. It is profoundly unfair on the young people who choose to attend an FE college, and perhaps even to do A-levels in its sixth form, that the college is treated differently—almost as a second-rate institution—when a school with a sixth form enjoys the higher funding and benefits that come with being able to reclaim VAT.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I apologise to my right hon. Friend and the Minister that I cannot stay, but I will read very carefully what the Minister says. Perhaps she could quantify what she thinks the VAT take from FE colleges is, so that we know what we are discussing.

Does my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) agree that we are not discussing a free gift to FE colleges? Like Colchester Institute, which serves my constituency, they are suffering an unparalleled financial squeeze at the moment and are having to inflict redundancies and cost reductions against a background of very low pay for most of the academic staff. Unless the Government can resolve that anomaly, FE colleges will face a crisis.

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue, which is affecting colleges in Colchester, the rest of Essex, Cornwall and the whole country. The cost of having staff at an FE college to run courses in practical skills such as electrical engineering or bricklaying and construction is probably higher than at a university, which can just cram a couple of hundred students into a lecture theatre and simply deliver a lecture. The cost of providing those important skills, which are vital to our economy, is higher. My hon. Friend is right that it is incredibly difficult for FE colleges to recruit and retain staff, because of the squeeze on their budgets, so we need to do better.

During the EU era, the Government were able to blame EU law for the fact that FE colleges had to be treated differently. I have done my share of blaming EU law in the past for various things that were my responsibility, but EU law is no longer a barrier and cannot be used as an excuse or a reason for not doing the fair and just thing. We have now vanquished EU law and we have the freedom and power to set a coherent tax policy that is consistent and fair.

Doubts have sometimes been expressed about whether FE colleges are public bodies per se, but that has now been settled. I understand that, last autumn, the Office for National Statistics, which has been going through a rather tortuous classification exercise, has deemed that all sorts of bodies that might have been considered private are now public. It has cleared the issue up and said that FE colleges are public bodies, and in my view they should therefore be included in the section 33 list of public bodies that can reclaim VAT.

I have looked at parliamentary questions that have been raised in this area, and Treasury Ministers have sought to insist that the ONS designation does not change anything and, indeed, that it does not change the Treasury’s right to set out what it considers the right bodies to be included in the section 33 list. That might be the case, but the House is entitled to a rational answer as to why FE colleges are treated differently. We are entitled to insist on consistency and fairness in the tax system and, therefore, to request and require the Government to bring forward a statutory instrument to remedy this unfair situation.

This issue matters because the FE sector really matters. I declare an interest: as a teenager, I attended Cornwall College, which has a campus in my constituency and is the leading FE college there. My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) is also passionate about the interests of the college, which has a site in his constituency. I learned to arc weld at the college; I was not particularly good at it—indeed, I returned recently and tried my hand at it, and if I was not good then, I am certainly not very good now. I also attended a course on business studies and management, and a second course on farm management, and the skills and knowledge I gained were invaluable to me, not just during my first career, when I went into the farming business, but for things I have done since.

A succession of Ministers in this Government have been passionate about the FE sector and have recognised the importance of apprenticeships. The Government can be proud of the way they have tried to raise the status of vocational courses through apprenticeships. That is one of their great achievements; it started under the coalition Government and has been maintained. That is important, because apprenticeships add real value to the real economy, but we have to put our money where our mouth is, and at the moment FE colleges just do not have a fair financial settlement.

We often point to the success in technical skills of other countries in Europe and elsewhere, and we argue that we want to match that. We have lots of good ideas about apprenticeships and raising the standard and consistency of the courses, but sadly it feels like we do not follow through by providing the funding offered by countries that have shown us how to do technical skills properly.

Last year, schools were rightly given an injection of about £2 billion to help them with the cost of energy and the pressures on labour charges and wages. We all have schools in our constituencies that are suffering those pressures, but FE colleges, although they had some uplift, received just a fraction of what schools were given. Again, it is difficult to escape the impression that they were treated unfairly.

FE colleges are really struggling to recruit staff. They have the difficulty of running courses that are much more hands-on. There are all sorts of health and safety considerations for courses such as bricklaying, carpentry or electrical engineering, and the tutor-to-learner ratios are probably much higher than in universities, where everyone is just sat in a lecture theatre with their notebooks out. The situation is very different, and it is much harder for FE colleges to cope with fewer staff. Because these are successful parts of the economy—wages have been rising for technical skills such as electrical engineering and construction—it is difficult for colleges to lure people back from the private sector. They often find that people do the work partly out of a sense of duty or public service.

It is important that we recognise that, because the FE sector really matters. It gives us the skills we need for the economy of the future. We increasingly recognise that if we want to level up economic growth around this country, we need to rekindle and start to respect again manufacturing industries and the sectors of the economy that require technical skills. We cannot just get by with people in pen-pushing roles and the service industry; we have to recognise the value of those skills and fund them.

Even in new sectors of the economy, such as computer software and coding, the best way to learn those skills is often in a business, so that an apprentice can actually learn the approach taken by an individual computer software company and really learn on the job, while getting generic training in computer coding from the local FE college as well. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) said, we should value young people who have chosen such a career and to train in something that will be of real value to our economy.

The Budget earlier this spring had much in it to welcome. In particular, I welcomed the introduction of investment allowances, which will benefit the manufacturing sector and help it to get tax relief and capital allowances for investments in business, but I must say that it feels like there was a failure to support FE colleges in the Budget. That was disappointing for many Members on the Government Benches, and dozens of us wrote to the Chancellor asking him to take the plight of FE colleges seriously and to look at whether additional funding to help FE colleges could be found, but that appeared to fall on deaf ears. I hope the Chancellor will take the earliest opportunity to put that right and rectify that unjustified omission.

I invite the Minister simply to commit to bring forward a statutory instrument under section 33 of the 1994 Act. I appreciate that she may need to do a bit of a Government write-round before being able to commit fully, but I hope she will at least express an openness to the idea and give us a clear explanation, if she is able to, of why a school with a sixth form can reclaim VAT, but an FE college with a sixth form cannot. That is the key question, which highlights this terrible unfairness.

In conclusion, many hon. Members on both sides of the House want to see fairer funding for FE colleges. Introducing the change I have set out would help; it would not involve a huge amount of money, but it would probably give FE colleges somewhere in the region of a 2% to 4% respite on their budget. They would probably all use that money immediately to help retain and recruit staff. It is a relatively small amount of money but, like my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), I am interested to hear what the Minister considers it would cost. Among those who support the change is my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), who is Chair of the Education Committee. There is widespread support for this, and I very much hope that the Minister will give us positive news in her response.

Government Response to Covid-19: Public Inquiry

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Thursday 22nd July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

May I be one of the many to congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on being pinged into your position at such short notice?

Let me pick up on the remarks of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) about his being unable to do his job. Collectively, Parliament is doing a great deal of scrutiny of the whole covid pandemic.

[Neale Hanvey]

I agree that scrutiny must be done, but if I cannot get a sensible answer from a Minister at the Dispatch Box, am given glib replies and am not provided with the information that I have rightly requested, that makes scrutiny almost impossible.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s frustration, but I have recently served on the Public Accounts Committee, I am Chairman of the Liaison Committee and I have served as Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and I see the Science and Technology Committee, the Health and Social Care Committee and other Committees of this House doing a great deal of really drilling-down scrutiny, so it is not as though no scrutiny is taking place.

I suspect that during this debate we will hear a mixture of the Opposition claiming it is an outrage that there is not an instant, fully comprehensive public inquiry lining people up against the wall to be shot and the Government saying there is not possibly any time for any of this. I have some sympathy for the Government’s position. A senior permanent secretary told me that Secretaries of State regularly complain, “Where is my permanent secretary?”, and it turns out they are preparing to go before another Select Committee. So much scrutiny is going on that is already almost impeding the Government in what they have to do.

We have to remind ourselves that a public inquiry is only a means to an end. The overriding aim of any public inquiry—this is a case in point—is that it should be part of a process that will restore justified public confidence in our system of government, which would satisfy the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath. We must therefore prioritise: it is going to be an enormous undertaking. A lot of it should be set aside for the future and we should concentrate on what is most urgent.

What lessons need to be learned now to prepare better for the next pandemic, which could be imminent? Why was our response so slow to build? Why, like so many Governments around the world, did we continue to pretend that there was not going to be an impending emergency? That happened not just in this country but everywhere. What planning had been done and why did it prove so ineffective? What new, permanent machinery of government and capability does there need to be to address the failings so that early indications of a pandemic threat lead to timely and effective action? What parliamentary Committee should oversee all this and hold the Government accountable?

The role of Parliament is to stop the Government fudging the terms of reference, to guarantee the independence of the chair and to prevent the Government from kicking all the difficult issues far into the future. Under my chairmanship, we looked at the Chilcot inquiry. So often, inquiries are actually a means of delaying scrutiny and delaying a reckoning on the issues, as opposed to learning the lessons.

I just add that the public would expect wilful wrongdoing to be punished—backward accountability, I call that—but not an inquiry to apportion blame, least of all for party political reasons. What the public want is honest and open truth about what has happened, which will not happen if witnesses are seeking to avoid blame, so I fully support what my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) said about making sure that the inquiry is not about apportioning blame.

The purpose of an inquiry like this is to establish truth so that we can hold those in power accountable for what they will do in future to make sure things are better planned and turn out better. That is what I call forward accountability, and I think that is what Select Committee scrutiny in this House should be about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

I would like to start by reading out a testament from Jane Roche from Castle Vale in my constituency. She lost her father and sister to coronavirus last year. She says:

“Losing my amazing Dad, Vincent Pettitt, and my amazing Sister Jocelyn Pettitt just 5 days apart has been the hardest thing to deal with in my life so far, and I am still grieving and will always grieve for them as they didn’t die in a natural dignified way with their family around them, telling them how much we loved them. We were such a close family.

My Dad was such a lovely man, no fool and strong in every way, I always felt loved and protected by him, he was so funny and had a very dry sense of humour, always making people laugh, his will to live was amazing, he fought other illnesses but always fought on.

My Sister was beautiful inside and out, very kind and loving, a wonderful Mother and Grandmother and her 3rd Grandchild was due to be born a month after she died so she never got to meet him and she was really looking forward to it. I feel robbed of Dad and my Sister as they were snatched away by Covid-19.”

She goes on:

“Only someone who has lost their loved one to Covid would understand how I feel, and unfortunately there are thousands of us. I feel heartbroken and I always will, I feel anxious most days and cry most days, and I miss them so very much…I need the Public Inquiry to happen this year, dragging it out until next year only makes me angry and the grief is made worse by thinking that nobody cares about all the people that have died from Covid…This has changed my life forever, I always feel like something bad is going to happen as I would never have expected this double tragedy last April. I will never get over this.”

The voice of the relatives; the voice of loss; the voice of pain—a voice that should be listened to.

I thank all hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed to this debate from across the House of Commons and those who participated in the work of the Committee, leading to the recommendations before us. I particularly thank the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), who chairs the Committee; the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), who gave a comprehensive report today; and Members, including the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), who have made contributions on the importance of learning lessons now if we are to avoid mistakes in the future.

The Committee’s report calls for a public inquiry into the Government’s response to covid-19 to begin immediately. We owe it to the families that this happens. The covid-19 public inquiry should be a landmark event in our nation’s history.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I thoroughly endorse the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, which underline the importance of giving settlement to the aggrieved and bereaved. That is an important role for a public inquiry. Does he also agree that the vast task that the public inquiry will represent means that it needs to be segmented, and that there are urgent bits that need to be done now and other bits that could be done later? Will he join me, and perhaps work with some Select Committees, to come up with some terms of reference for which parts of the inquiry should start now and would not disrupt what the Government need to carry on doing at this very pressured time, but would enable us to start the learning process on the urgent matters?

[Jack Dromey]

The hon. Member makes a good point that a sensible debate can and should take place on how the inquiry can commence immediately and then be conducted in stages. Surely the first priority is learning lessons from what has gone wrong in order to avoid that in the future and to avoid us seeing yet more people die needlessly. That approach is sensible. Exactly how the public inquiry is conducted should form part of the debate.

Over the past year, the country has experienced tragedy and human suffering on a scale not seen since the second world war. No one could have imagined that 130,000 lives would be lost to this terrible virus, which has turned whole lives upside down as family and friends mourn the loss of loved ones. That is why this debate matters and why a public inquiry is so important. All Members across the House will have heard heartbreaking stories from their constituents over the past 18 months, like from Jane, who quite simply says, “I want to know why my dad and sister died. What were the mistakes that were made?”. She always asks, “How can we ensure that no one else in future suffers the loss that I have suffered?”. It is therefore vital that the covid-19 public inquiry has the confidence of the bereaved families, such as Jane.

The Committee’s report is a vital contribution to ensuring that the Government get the process right. In the time since the report was published, the Government have announced that a public inquiry will take place. However, that should not be a reason to be relaxed, because I am afraid that the Government’s approach to the inquiry thus far falls far short of what the Committee recommends should be expected. As a consequence, the Government risk the trust and confidence of the bereaved families if they do not place them at the heart of the process going forward, about which I will say more later.

I wish to focus on three key areas highlighted by the report in which, frankly, the Government’s approach is lacking: first, the timetable for the inquiry to begin; secondly, the selection of the chair and the terms of reference; and thirdly, the implementation of the inquiry’s recommendations. On the first point, the Government have set a timetable for the inquiry to commence in the spring of next year. That is simply too far away. Everyone understands the challenges that the country had to face during the first wave, but the Government’s failure to learn the lessons of the first wave has already left us with an even more tragic second wave during last winter, with too many lost lives and our stretched economy under even more strain. Then, this spring, we have had the debacle of the borders policy, with the delta variant sweeping through the country and a third wave developing and cases now rocketing.

It is therefore critical that we learn the lessons that need to be learned now. The Government cannot kick the can down the road to next spring. I stress again that we need to go forward to the next stages. We know that the Government have conducted internal lessons learned reviews. What are these reviews? Why will they not publish them? What is there to hide? The Committee recommends that such in-house assessments by Government Departments should be handed to the relevant Select Committees and the summaries also made public, and that has got to be right. Surely, on a matter so important to the future preparedness of the nation to rise to the challenge of coronavirus, the Government should publish these reviews now.

I now turn to the selection of the chair and the terms of reference of the inquiry. Paragraph 24 of the Committee’s report is clear that the setting up of the inquiry’s secretariat and administrative functions must begin “immediately” as

“delaying the set-up will inevitably delay the inquiry’s ability to start work in earnest”.

The Committee is absolutely right. I completely agree, and we have been clear, that the work must commence now and that it must be transparent and in consultation with the bereaved families. Just how long do the Government expect the families to wait for this process to begin? Other family members have said to me, “Jack, justice delayed is justice denied. We, the bereaved families, deserve better than this.”

I understand why the Government do not wish to redirect officials and frontline staff on a wholesale basis from the work of combating the pandemic, but surely the consultation with the bereaved families and other stakeholders on the selection of the inquiry chair, its secretariat and terms of reference can and should begin now. The Committee highlights that consultation with the bereaved families could make a “significant contribution” to the inquiry. I absolutely agree. The House will therefore want to hear from the Minister how much progress has been made on consulting the bereaved families on these matters.

Yesterday, dozens of members of the Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice campaign came to London. It was heartbreaking to walk down row upon row of photographs of loved ones who had died. They wanted to bring home the impact on them, the relatives and the bereaved, but they also wanted to know, in telling their often heartbreaking stories, why no one was talking to them. One mother whose grandmother had died said, “Why is it that they are not talking to us?” She wanted to know why the Government had not contacted relatives’ organisations, particularly the Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice campaign, to start to engage in a dialogue going forward at the next stages. It is inexplicable and absolutely unacceptable.

I share the concern of the relatives over the foot-dragging by Ministers who have avoided repeated requests to meet the bereaved families and hear their concerns. I can give an example that I have been engaged in personally. Before resigning, the former Health Secretary was good enough to agree at the Dispatch Box last December to meet families from Birmingham, yet not once did he or his office contact them or me to make the arrangements, despite numerous phone calls and emails from us. Not once. He had lifted the expectations of dozens of relatives that they would at last be involved in dialogue and consultation, but the door was shut in their face. I hope the Minister can now give a clear assurance that the bereaved families will be consulted on the chair and the terms of reference.

Finally, there is the question of implementing the inquiry’s recommendations. The hon. Member for Thurrock, in a powerful contribution, mentioned Bishop Jones, the Hillsborough inquiry and the mistakes that were made before fully exposing the truth of what happened. That point was well made. We cannot let this be a public inquiry whose recommendations are quietly shelved or swept under the carpet. The national trauma that the country has endured over the past year demands more. Despite the crisis last year, this country has achieved great things, but a decade of austerity weakened the foundations of our country and undermined our national defences against the pandemic.

We cannot simply go back to business as usual when the pandemic subsides. Lessons must be learned. The Government should therefore make a clear commitment both to set up the inquiry and to engage with it. It is only by beginning the inquiry that we can learn those serious lessons to avoid future tragedies. Without that, we cannot build a better future for our country, built on the strength and resilience we tapped into to get through the hardest of times. Only then can we be ready for whatever challenges come next.

In closing, I refer once again to those who should be at the heart of the covid-19 public inquiry: those who died and their families. On both sides of the House, right hon. and hon. Members have been meeting bereaved families over the past year. Those meetings have been some of the most difficult and emotional I have ever been involved in. The families simply want to know why their loved ones died, when many of them should not have. They want the right lessons to be learned so that no one else has to suffer the loss they have suffered. That is a noble aim, and it is one that the Government must rise to in setting up the public inquiry. We owe nothing less to the bereaved families.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Paymaster General (Penny Mordaunt)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and congratulations.

I have answered many debates on the pandemic from this Dispatch Box, and it has always been right to start by thinking of all those who have lost so much and who have been through such pain and distress in this cruel pandemic, which has even denied people the ability to grieve properly. Inquiries have many purposes, as the chairman of the Hillsborough inquiry ably stated. They are a stepping-stone to closure for families, although the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) is right to say that they bring no comfort for their loss.

It is incredibly important that we place those individuals and others, such as NHS and care staff who have given so much during this crisis, at the heart of the inquiry. Having had the privilege of being the sponsoring Minister for the infected blood inquiry since February 2020, I know how it can be done well. I have just announced the compensation study, which will involve a consultation on the terms of reference for that study with those affected by infected blood. That is how we do things, and I would give people comfort by saying, “Look at how we do these very sensitive inquiries. Look at how we can do them really well.” We want to do the covid-19 inquiry really well, and we will place those affected at its heart.

I want to answer the many points that have been raised by hon. Members and put on record my thanks to the Backbench Business Committee for this debate. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have made contributions, and I thank the Chair, the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), and the Committee for their work. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) for opening the debate.

Clearly, the Government agree with the Committee that there needs to be a statutory inquiry, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister confirmed that in a statement to the House on 12 May. The public inquiry will be established on a statutory basis with full powers under the Inquiries Act 2005.

Several Members have raised the timing of the inquiry, and I agree with many of the comments that have been made. We want to do this as swiftly as possible, but not to the detriment of the pandemic response. Several Members have recognised that this would place a significant burden on the whole of Government, our scientific advisers, our NHS and many others.

Although we want to start the inquiry in the spring—on the timetable, given what I have said about the work that needs to be done to set the inquiry up, I hope that I will be able to give hon. Members some comfort that that will start very shortly—of course we do not want to wait for that before commencing other work. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), the Chair of the Liaison Committee, has suggested, we need to learn lessons now to enable us to continually improve our response, not just to this crisis but to other threats that may be out there. And we have continually learned—not just in Government, but ably supported by the excellent work of this House and its Committees, as well as the National Audit Office and many others.

We are already taking important steps to improve our resilience, which is why last week we launched the call for evidence to inform the development of a new resilience strategy. That call for evidence starts a proper national debate about what effective resilience should mean for us all, and will allow us to move towards a whole of society approach to resilience and build resilience into our everyday lives.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I am fully aware that the Government are learning lessons as quickly as possible, but they are underpowering their ability to strengthen public confidence. This just looks too much like the ordinary activity of Government. For example, if the call for evidence was going to be independently assessed—not by a statutory inquiry but at least by an independent chair, supported by a panel of independent people—and a report more independent than just a Government White Paper was going to be compiled, and if the panel was going to be able to take evidence from victims and others who have participated in the crisis, not necessarily Ministers and Government scientists, would that not strengthen public confidence that there was an element of independence injected into the process and that things were being done that they were not aware of?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I agree with the thrust of what my hon. Friend says. Leaving the inquiry to one side for the moment, the call for evidence and, indeed, all the work that we have done improving not just our risk register but our risk assessment tools, because we recognise that we need to reform the methodology that sits behind it, are with external partners. For example, on the risk assessment, we are using various external stakeholders—with engineering skills, for example—to kick the tyres on our methodology, and it will be much more open and consultative than any previous process.

I will move on to how the inquiry could be established. Many Members have commented on having a panel. Clearly, some inquiries have taken that model. That is a very good point, and it is one that I know my colleagues are listening to. We have not rested on those findings; we have established many things to improve our response. I will go into this in slightly more detail, as many Members have raised these points. We have established a joint organisational learning system, jointly managed by the emergency services interoperability principles team and the civil contingencies secretariat. We established the UK Health Security Agency in April this year. We have a new situations centre. We have the Boardman reports, the first of which set out 28 recommendations that the Department is committed to implementing in full. The second report, which is a wider review, has identified a further 28 recommendations for improvements to procurement in Government. We are also steadfast in our commitment to intensify international co-operation. We want to reflect on the central role that the World Health Organisation has played over the course of the pandemic in achieving resilient healthcare systems.

We are seeking to implement improvements to systems and processes so that we are better prepared for any future crisis, whether it is a health issue or any other. Those improvements need to be embedded into the development of new capabilities such as the situations centre or the launch of the catastrophic emergency planning programme. With regard to those on the frontline, particularly local resilience forums, a huge amount of learning has gone on. We are currently funding a pilot to build capacity in local resilience forums. They are on the frontline. They should be in the driving seat for local decisions, and we want to build their capacity in that respect.

I very much welcome the Committee’s conclusions, and also the views of other Members of the House who have said that the inquiry should be forward-looking and primarily focused on improving our policy. I know that many are in agreement on that.

With regard to the chair of the inquiry, the Committee recommended, as we have heard, that the Government give proper consideration to a non-judicial chair. There are many ways that that could be set up. There could be a panel to sit alongside the chair. What is critical is that there is a genuine breadth of experience. While not wanting to slow the inquiry down, we really do need it to be led and supported by people who have that expertise.

The Government are extremely grateful to the Committee and this House for their thoughtful considerations on these issues. I hope that some of what I have said may provide reassurance to all those who have been affected by these terrible events. Retaining their confidence, and the confidence of all who have been involved in this crisis, is vital if we are going to get a good result in this inquiry. I want to assure Members that we will also be working with the devolved Administrations in this regard.

[Penny Mordaunt]

I would be happy to meet anyone who has been affected. I am not the sponsoring Minister for this inquiry. However, I have always found in my engagements with victims in inquiries where I am the sponsoring Minister that they are incredibly helpful in making sure that we are doing the right thing. I may not be the Minister whom it would be most beneficial for that campaign to meet, but the hon. Gentleman certainly has my assurances and my commitment to ensure that the inquiry is the best it can be.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Will my right hon. Friend place on the record who is the sponsoring Minister?

[Penny Mordaunt]

At the moment the Prime Minister is the sponsoring Minister. Clearly, he will want to delegate some functions to other Ministers. I tend to do a lot of this work in the Cabinet Office, and I stand ready to play my part, but the Prime Minister himself is taking the lead. I think that is very understandable given the nature of this inquiry. In closing, I wish all colleagues well for the recess.

Northern Ireland Protocol

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Thursday 15th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House supports the primary aims of the Northern Ireland Protocol of the EU Withdrawal Agreement, which are to uphold the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement in all its dimensions and to respect the integrity of the EU and UK internal markets; recognises that new infrastructure and controls at the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic must be avoided to maintain the peace in Northern Ireland and to encourage stability and trade; notes that the volume of trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland far exceeds the trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland; further notes that significant provisions of the Protocol remain subject to grace periods and have not yet been applied to trade from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and that there is no evidence that this has presented any significant risk to the EU internal market; regards flexibility in the application of the Protocol as being in the mutual interests of the EU and UK, given the unique constitutional and political circumstances of Northern Ireland; regrets EU threats of legal action; notes the EU and UK have made a mutual commitment to adopt measures with a view to avoiding controls at the ports and airports of Northern Ireland to the extent possible; is conscious of the need to avoid separating the Unionist community from the rest of the UK, consistent with the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement; and also recognises that Article 13(8) of the Protocol provides for potentially superior arrangements to those currently in place.

Thank you for that statement, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I would like to record my thanks to the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this debate. I am also very grateful that so many right hon. and hon. Members have put in to take part in it. I believe that this is a debate of significance, and at a time of significance.

The purpose of the debate is for the House to agree on how the Government should approach the issues that have arisen in Northern Ireland since the UK left the European Union. I remind the House that the Northern Ireland protocol was part of the 2019 EU withdrawal agreement, not part of the trade and co-operation agreement, which was ratified only this year. It is the protocol that is creating strains on power sharing under the Good Friday agreement, pressures on political stability and an upsurge in tension between the two communities in Northern Ireland.

Let me just say what this debate is not about. There is absolutely no value in point scoring about past divisions and disputes that we have had in this House. That would just further undermine public confidence. This debate is about looking forward, about what we must now agree to do to set things right. The proposals I will come to are in the interests of the EU as much as they are in the interests of the UK.

The motion sets out

“the primary aims of the Northern Ireland Protocol of the EU Withdrawal Agreement, which are to uphold the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement in all its dimensions and to respect the integrity of the EU and UK internal markets”

and states that

“new infrastructure and controls at the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic must be avoided to maintain the peace in Northern Ireland and to encourage stability and trade”.

The motion then points out an indisputable fact—that

“the volume of trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland far exceeds the trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland”.

Why is this significant? In 2019, the Northern Ireland Executive found that over 90% of medicines, fruit and vegetables, books, clothes, household goods and baby equipment sold in Northern Ireland was arriving from other parts of the United Kingdom. In 2018, Northern Ireland sales to Great Britain were two and a half times greater than those to the Republic.

The protocol is clear: it is not intended to create what it refers to as “diversion of trade”. On the contrary, article 16 states:

“If the application of this Protocol leads to serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade, the Union or the United Kingdom may unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measures.”

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. Is it not significant that since the protocol came into operation, there has been a dramatic increase in imports from the Irish Republic into Northern Ireland and a fall in trade between GB and Northern Ireland? Indeed, Irish Ministers have boasted that one reason for having a delay in further border checks is to encourage further diversion of trade towards the Irish Republic.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I could not be more grateful for that intervention, and I will amplify the points that the right hon. Gentleman makes, because he is absolutely right. Have no doubt that there has been and continues to be diversion of trade due to the protocol. Article 16 exists in order that either party can take unilateral action to prevent that.

The Central Statistics Office Ireland reports that Republic of Ireland exports to Northern Ireland in the first four months of this year increased by 25% and by 40% relative to the first four months of 2019 and 2020. Northern Ireland exports to the Republic increased by 59% and 61% on the same comparison. Some are heralding that as the birth of an all-Ireland economy, but that is wholly contrary to the letter and spirit of the protocol.

The motion in my name continues by noting that

“significant provisions of the Protocol remain subject to grace periods and have not yet been applied to trade from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and that there is no evidence that this has presented any significant risk to the EU internal market”.

Those grace periods, applying to chilled meats, medicines and the requirement of export health certificates, are intended to lapse in the coming months. The UK Government may choose to extend them, as we already have, with or without the EU’s permission, and they would be justified in doing so because the grace periods are not doing any harm, but that is not a long-term solution.

The Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Simon Coveney, says that the grace periods exist

“to give supermarkets in particular, the opportunity to readjust their supply chains to adapt to”

what he refers to as “these new realities”. I am afraid that confirms in the minds of many that the protocol is being used to create diversion of trade.

Diversion of trade as a goal can form no basis for the rebuilding of trust and public confidence in both communities in Northern Ireland. Article 6 of the protocol requires the EU and the UK to

“use their best endeavours to facilitate the trade between Northern Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom”.

I regret to say that, thus far, there is little evidence to suggest that the Republic of Ireland or the EU are attaching any importance to that vital commitment, and that is what is destroying trust.

The motion then states that this House

“regards flexibility in the application of the Protocol as being in the mutual interests of the EU and UK, given the unique constitutional and political circumstances of Northern Ireland; regrets EU threats of legal action; notes the EU and UK have made a mutual commitment to adopt measures with a view to avoiding controls at the ports and airports of Northern Ireland to the extent possible; is conscious of the need to avoid separating the Unionist community from the rest of the UK, consistent with the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement; and also recognises that Article 13(8) of the Protocol provides for potentially superior arrangements to those currently in place.”

That is the real point of the motion: that the protocol is only one solution to the challenge of avoiding a hard border in Ireland while also respecting the integrity of the EU and UK internal markets.

There always was more than one way to skin a cat, and the EU agreed to that in article 13(8). Unfortunately, the EU seems implacably opposed to any discussion about how a subsequent agreement under article 13(8) of the protocol could supersede the protocol in whole or in part. Paragraph 25 of the political declaration accompanying the withdrawal agreement also envisaged:

“Such facilitative arrangements and technologies will also be considered in alternative arrangements for ensuring the absence of a hard border on the island of Ireland.”

Sadly, the protocol was not superseded by the trade and co-operation agreement, but now is the time for the EU to accept that its application of the protocol is not achieving its legitimate aims. Either the protocol must be changed by agreement or the UK must exercise its sovereign right to jettison the whole thing as a fundamental threat to peace and stability in Northern Ireland and to the integrity of the United Kingdom.

The EU could start by agreeing to an expanded category of goods that are not at risk of onward travel to the Republic of Ireland. We already have an authorised trader scheme for supermarkets; that could also be expanded, creating far less paperwork than there is now and a permanent exemption from unnecessary sanitary and phytosanitary checks. The EU could also agree to allow non-EU-compliant UK products to be imported into Northern Ireland if they are not at risk of moving into the rest of the EU internal market. The question is whether the EU is capable of being flexible and pragmatic, or whether it will continue to insist on imposing its rules, whatever the cost to peace and stability in Northern Ireland.

The noble Lord, Lord Trimble, was one of the two leaders who won the Nobel peace prize for negotiating the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. He has proposed a new solution: replacing the protocol with a system of mutual enforcement. This would mean that the UK and the EU would each ensure and guarantee that goods travelling across the shared border would be compliant with each other’s standards. Light checks would occur, but away from the border, and both sides would share relevant data on exports.

That proposal would remove the need for direct EU jurisdiction over Northern Ireland; Northern Ireland would be under UK law and fully restored as part of the UK internal market. It would ensure the absence of any new infrastructure on the border itself, it would guarantee the integrity of the EU internal market and, most importantly, it would accord equal respect to the concerns of both communities in Northern Ireland in a way that the present protocol utterly fails to do.

The proposal has not yet been tabled by the UK Government, but my understanding is that they broadly support the sentiments of the motion. Ideally, the EU would accept its obligations under paragraph 25 of the 2019 political declaration and agree in principle that the protocol will be superseded by these pragmatic and practical proposals.

We must hope that the EU lives up to its own ideals. Article 8 of the treaty on European Union obliges the EU to

“develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries, aiming to establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness…based on cooperation.”

If the EU refuses in principle even to open these discussions, the UK will have no option but to resort to article 16 of the protocol and take unilateral action. The world is watching how the EU is dealing with the United Kingdom.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

Sometimes, over the course of this, the view is taken in the EU, or even in Ireland, that somehow the rest of the UK, or Great Britain, has no regard at all for the status of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom. May I just read back to my hon. Friend two facts from a recent poll, which shows that to be completely wrong? When asked whether it is unfair to Northern Ireland that it is treated differently from the rest of the UK, over 50% of the residents from the whole of the United Kingdom said, yes, it was unfair. The second question, which is really important, was: how important or unimportant is it that Northern Ireland remains a part of the United Kingdom. Again, well over half—53%—said “important”. Interestingly, that is a margin of 41% over those in the United Kingdom who said it was unimportant. We want Northern Ireland to remain a part of the United Kingdom.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

My right hon. Friend puts down an important marker. We can dismiss any idea that the United Kingdom as a whole is not interested in the interests of Northern Ireland or in Northern Ireland remaining part of the United Kingdom. That is an established fact and he has dealt with that very capably.

In conclusion, the world is watching how the EU is dealing with the United Kingdom. The UK will offer agreement on what the problems are and how they must be resolved. Together, the EU and the UK can look for common ground about how to do so; otherwise the rest of the world will see that the grounds for invoking article 16 have indeed already been met, and action will have to be taken.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I have to impose an immediate six-minute time limit on Back Bench speeches, but that is quite generous as compared with recent times.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Thomson]

I think there is a shared interest in making sure that there is as close to seamless trade as can possibly exist across these islands, within these islands and with the European Union. In that sense, the right hon. Gentleman and I are on the same page.

An agreement on animal welfare, sanitary and phytosanitary standards would eliminate the need for very many of the checks and reopen that trade. It is that sort of pragmatic renegotiation of the protocol, in the light of experience and of everything that has come from the nature of Brexit, that would be desirable in order to remove not just the barriers but the symbolism that the frictions that are being felt so keenly in Northern Ireland represent.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

May I just point out that if there was an independent Scotland inside the European Union, it would not be that independent, because it would be bound by all the rules of the European Union and the European Union customs code? Scotland would be obliged to have a hard border with the rest of England—not being independent from the European Union, it would have no choice in that matter whatsoever. It was a spokesman for the Scottish nationalist party who said that that would be good for Scotland because a border would create jobs. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that that was actually said?

[Richard Thomson]

I knew that mentioning Scottish independence in this context would wake up hon. Members on the Government Benches. Nobody in the Scottish National party wants to set up hard borders with anywhere. It is simply because we are having to live with the consequences of this English nationalist dream and misguided venture that the question arises.

While it is fine and necessary to set an objective of restoring that frictionless trade, it must be done in the correct way. [Interruption.] Being mindful of your strictures, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will draw my remarks to a close. We need to identify practical ways in which that can happen. Above all, the UK Government must stop the empty sabre-rattling. They must stop blaming their predecessors for the misfortunes that they have created for themselves. They must stop blaming everybody else for the misfortunes that they have landed themselves in and for the outcomes of their own choices—[Interruption.] A little bit of self-reflection and self-awareness on the Government Benches would not go amiss at this juncture.

More to the point, the Government need to work to rebuild trust and to secure a durable solution that works in the interests of everyone in Northern Ireland and across these islands.

--- Later in debate ---

[Louise Haigh]

Of course we have studied the suggestions made by Lord Trimble, who we all thoroughly respect as a co-author of the Good Friday agreement. I would welcome the Minister’s comments and remarks on the Government’s strategy to propose and negotiate such an agreement with the European Union. Mutual enforcement relies on trust, and we need a veterinary agreement that respects the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland. Although we can look to New Zealand and Switzerland as potential models, we need a new model that recognises this unique circumstance, with its own regulatory mechanism to enforce it.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I thought the hon. Lady started her speech extremely well. We have had a few party political points, but I understand what it is to be in Opposition. She is making an interesting contribution about a proposal for a veterinary agreement. Of course, the EU is demanding not a veterinary agreement based on mutual enforcement; it wants a veterinary agreement based on alignment, which is just taking back control. That would prevent us from making any free trade agreements with other countries on any of those matters. Is it now Labour party policy to support a veterinary agreement based on mutual enforcement? That would be a very positive step.

[Louise Haigh]

We are very happy to see such proposals negotiated. I suggest that the EU is highly unlikely to accept such an agreement, given the profound loss of trust that has resulted from the way this Government, Lord Frost and the Prime Minister have approached negotiations. We want to commit to good food standards—indeed, world-leading food standards, as we were promised in the Conservative party manifesto in 2019. In objecting to alignment, which food or animal welfare standards does the hon. Gentleman wish to lower? What food standards is he prioritising over the protection of the economic integrity of the Union?

The agreement must be based on a commitment to high standards. As I said, the Government made that commitment in their manifesto, and it remains hugely popular in the United Kingdom. No one wants our food or animal welfare standards to be undermined. As the CBI has said,

“a dramatic increase in paperwork, compliance costs and delays for firms”

is coming, even while we maintain the same animal welfare standards as the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her strong speech. This has been a thoughtful and meaningful debate. I am particularly pleased that the Opposition Front Bench has given its support to the motion that has been tabled. That will strengthen the Government’s negotiating position considerably.

I will pick up one or two points. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) talked about the need for flexibility, but then seemed to say that that could be achieved without any change to the protocol. That is just not realistic. The idea that the President of the Commission cannot change his mind because member states would have to agree may be a problem for the European Union, but it cannot be a problem for the paralysis of the British Government—the British Government will have to take action.

I invite all those who have almost signed up to what I call the Macron doctrine, after he said at the G7 summit that nothing was negotiable and everything was applicable—this attitude of “You’ve signed it, so you’re stuck with it,” whether or not that is good for the British people or the Northern Ireland peace process—to consider that that is a kind of blindness that we really have to drop. What we are looking for is flexibility, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset, the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, asked for—real flexibility. The EU will not win respect around the world for adopting a head in the sand approach to this, and we will not shoehorn the whole of the United Kingdom back into the single market to resolve these problems, because that is not what the British people voted for.

I leave my right hon. Friend the Minister with this fundamental thought. She talked about working hard and in good faith, and courage and determination, but I am afraid that we are reaching the point very quickly where the Government will have to take action, and it will be a question of letting the European Union know that its failure to respond in reasonable good faith to the entreaties with which the Government have been presenting it will lead to consequences. That needs to happen soon, because the longer this situation persists, the more economic disruption is caused in Northern Ireland and the more the faith and trust in the Good Friday agreement are ebbing away. Everyone has to accept that the protocol is bad for the peace process in Northern Ireland, and it must change or be changed.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

This House supports the primary aims of the Northern Ireland Protocol of the EU Withdrawal Agreement, which are to uphold the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement in all its dimensions and to respect the integrity of the EU and UK internal markets; recognises that new infrastructure and controls at the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic must be avoided to maintain the peace in Northern Ireland and to encourage stability and trade; notes that the volume of trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland far exceeds the trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland; further notes that significant provisions of the Protocol remain subject to grace periods and have not yet been applied to trade from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and that there is no evidence that this has presented any significant risk to the EU internal market; regards flexibility in the application of the Protocol as being in the mutual interests of the EU and UK, given the unique constitutional and political circumstances of Northern Ireland; regrets EU threats of legal action; notes the EU and UK have made a mutual commitment to adopt measures with a view to avoiding controls at the ports and airports of Northern Ireland to the extent possible; is conscious of the need to avoid separating the Unionist community from the rest of the UK, consistent with the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement; and also recognises that Article 13(8) of the Protocol provides for potentially superior arrangements to those currently in place.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I am suspending the House for a few minutes to make the necessary arrangements for the next business.

0.7% Official Development Assistance Target

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Tuesday 8th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Of course, what he says has been reinforced by every single member of his party who serves in the House, and it is the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, a former Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, was making: if we turn this expenditure on and off in this way, the taxpayer does not get proper value for money.

Nor is this about party politics. All 650 of us elected to this House at the last election promised to stand by the 0.7%. The Bill enshrining the 0.7% in law was passed unwhipped in this House, with just six dissenters. Outside the House, in every single constituency in the country, there are people taking action as part of Crack the Crises, the growing environment and development group. Each and every one of us is accountable to those constituents, who are taking action in their local schools, colleges, churches, mosques, charity shops, women’s institute branches, congregations and community groups.

Twelve million people—an average of 15,000 per parliamentary constituency—are supporters of the member organisations of that coalition, and they must be heard. The people who sponsor children through development organisations, the members of churches that are twinned with others in the developing world, the people who were there for Jubilee 2000 and for Make Poverty History—they do not forget when we break our promises to them; they organise.

I can assure the House that, were it not for the covid restrictions, the same people who made the human chain around the Birmingham G8 summit and the quarter of a million people who marched on Edinburgh before the Gleneagles G8 would be preparing today to descend on Cornwall to make their views known at this G7 and to protest this unethical and unlawful betrayal. They would be joined by a whole new generation of young people who are watching this Government break our promise to the world’s poorest. They do not like what they see. This weekend, they may not be on the streets, but they will be watching, and they will remember.

For two decades, the UK has been a development leader, not just because that is morally right and accords with our values, but because it is in our own national interest. By making the countries we seek to help safer and more prosperous, we make life for ourselves here in Britain safer and more prosperous.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has been courteous and persuasive in trying to get me to join his cause, but I have declined to do so because I think that the Government are doing precisely what he describes but in ways that do not qualify as aid. I have asked the Government to clarify all the other things that we are doing that are contributing to the reduction of global poverty and, indeed, what we will do with the vaccine programmes to contribute to the alleviation of disease and distress in the poorest countries.

[Mr Mitchell]

I very much hope that my hon. Friend will stay for the whole debate so that he hears the views across the House. I am sure that will be both instructive and interesting for him.

Mr Speaker, the way the Government are behaving strikes at the heart of our Parliament, as you set out from the Chair yesterday. We cannot secure a meaningful vote. Had we been able to do so yesterday, as I intimated to the House, we would definitely have won by nine, and probably by nearer 20. It is precisely because the Government fear that they would lose that they are not calling a vote. That is not democracy. When countries behave like that in Africa, we British say that they have got it wrong. The Government need to remember that the Government and the Executive are accountable to Parliament, not the other way round, and most especially on issues of supply, as the Minister—he is a very good Minister—knows. That applies in all circumstances, whether the Executive are being run by King Charles I or Boris Johnson.

The Government make two key arguments: first, that they are still spending a huge amount of money—I am sure that is what my right hon. Friend the Minister will say this afternoon—and, secondly, that we are living in unprecedented times for our economy and they will bring the 0.7% back. Let me start with the first—that we are still spending a huge amount of money. Of course, that is entirely correct, but we all promised to spend 0.7% of our GNI, not to change the target and spend 0.5%. All of us made that promise—I have seen every single Member’s manifesto at the last election, and every single elected Member made that promise.

It is arguable, at the least, that the action the Government are taking is unlawful. One of the most senior and distinguished lawyers in the country, the warden of Wadham, Oxford, a former Director of Public Prosecutions, has made it clear that the Government are acting unlawfully because they have changed, rather than missed, the target. I argue to the House this afternoon that what the Government are doing is unethical, possibly illegal and certainly breaks our promise.

On the point about the level of expenditure and the £10 billion, it is rather like buying a car and shaking hands on a deal at 15 grand, only to do a runner while the poor fellow is counting the cash after you have legged it, having handed over only 10 grand. It is not proper, it is fundamentally un-British and we should not behave in this way. It is about the girl whose school closed in South Sudan last week after the headteacher read the letter from the Foreign Office explaining that it is only temporary.

The second argument is that we live in unprecedented economic times and that the Government will bring the 0.7% back, but the 0.7% is configured precisely to take account of our economy. When the economy contracts and goes down, so does the amount of money spent under the 0.7%, and when it increases, that amount goes back up. We are talking about 1% of the money that the Treasury quite rightly spent on covid last year to sustain and support jobs, families and employment. This is 1%—it is practically a rounding error in my right hon. Friend’s books.

We offered an olive branch to the Government last night, which the Government could have accepted, and then we could all have cracked on with other things, by asking them to bring the 0.7% back next year. We accept that they are not going to bring it back this year, but we asked them to bring it back next year, when the Governor of the Bank of England says that the economy will have rebounded to pre-covid levels and growth will be strong. If the Government were serious about bringing it back when the economy improved, they would have accepted the olive branch that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I offered.

Everyone knows what this is about. It is not about the 1% rounding error in the Treasury’s books. It is about the red wall seats. The Government think that it is popular in the red wall seats to stop British aid money going overseas. Indeed, one Treasury Minister told me that 81% of people in the red wall seats do not approve of spending British taxpayers’ money overseas. But we have to be careful about the question we ask, because other polling in the red wall seats shows that 92% of people there do not approve of cutting humanitarian aid. It is also a very patronising attitude to people who live in the red wall seats, because when these dreadful famines, disasters and floods take place, it is the people in the red wall seats who are the first to raise money through car boot sales and pub quizzes to try to help those who are caught. In the words of Talleyrand, the French statesman, this is worse than a crime; it is a mistake. What my right hon. and hon. Friends and I—the so-called rebels—are trying to do is to keep the Government straight.

And so we come to this week’s G7 summit, when the leaders of the richest nations will assemble in Cornwall. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be chairing the summit, and he goes into it in the teeth of a global pandemic, when Britain is cutting its support to the poorest. No other country represented at the G7 is doing such a thing. The French have now embraced the 0.7%. The Germans will spend more than 0.7% this year. The Americans—by far the biggest funders in the world—are seeking an increase through Congress of $14 billion in the amount that is spent. We are the only ones going backwards.

Other G7 countries are noticing what the Government are doing. Is it any wonder that, in a letter to President Biden, a dozen Members of Congress have urged him to upbraid Britain for breaking its promise? One sentence in their letter made me wince. It reads as follows:

“Cutting back on foreign assistance during the worst humanitarian crisis of our generation only undermines our collective global response.”

This is what the journalist who used to serve in this House and who probably understands the Conservative party best said at the weekend:

“Try though seasick government whips will to mount one, there is no civilised defence of this cut. This cut looks like what it is: a cheap and brutal gesture, a piece of domestic applause-seeking”.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee of the Whole House (Day 1)
Monday 19th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

The right hon. Gentlemen raised a very similar question with me on Second Reading and, as he knows, the Government are engaging very closely with the Northern Ireland Executive. I am not in a position to second-guess what the EU may or may not do in that regard, but we have been very clear that we want to put a freeport in Northern Ireland and we want it to be a strong offer comparable to the freeports available elsewhere in the United Kingdom. That is what we will be seeking to achieve.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

In passing, I thank the Government for designating Freeport East, which includes Harwich in my constituency, as one of the freeports. I am struggling to find how the tax concessions in this Bill avail us of the new freedoms outside the European Union. Will my right hon. Friend identify how the freedoms in this Bill are in contention with the EU state aid rules on tax subsidies? Of course, that would not apply in Northern Ireland, where the EU state aid rules still apply. The Government might as well be completely honest about this: if there are advantages for England of being outside the EU that we do not have because Northern Ireland is still effectively inside the EU, let us hear about them, because we want to know that we have those advantages in England.

[Jesse Norman]

I think my hon. Friend has erred in his logic. It is perfectly possible for us to benefit from the flexibility of setting taxes, as we are, while being able to have a strong agreed offer that satisfies whatever rules may apply in Northern Ireland with the Northern Ireland Executive. They will be of different characters, but there is no reason to think that neither is possible.

Clauses 109 to 111 give the Government the power to designate tax sites and, once sites have been designated, to provide relief within them for the acquisition of commercial purpose property and new plant and machinery assets, as well as relief on the construction or renovation of buildings. These powers will enable the Government to move quickly to enable businesses to begin accessing the benefits of freeports as soon as is feasible.

The Government are committed to tackling non-compliance in the tax system, and freeports are not an exception to that. Anti-avoidance and evasion provisions are included in the Bill, and will be taken across further legislation for the individual tax reliefs. In addition, the Government will take further powers to create a robust system of monitoring in freeports and enable HMRC to request relevant information from businesses. This will ensure that public money is being used effectively in pursuit of the regeneration and development of freeport locations.

Clause 109 will enable the Government to designate the location of tax sites connected to any freeport in Great Britain. The tax reliefs made available as part of the Government’s freeports programme will apply only in these sites, and the Government intend to bring forward legislation to apply these reliefs in Northern Ireland at a later date.

Bidders submitted initial proposals for their tax sites during the bidding process. The Government allowed up to 600 hectares of tax site space to be proposed, across a maximum of three separate sites per freeport. Tax site proposals were also judged against a set of criteria relating to existing deprivation and unemployment, to ensure tax measures will have maximum impact in regenerating those areas. The Government will now work with the successful locations to approve their tax site proposals. Once the successful bids have completed the full tax site assessment process, the Government will designate the agreed areas as tax sites. From that point forwards, businesses will be able to claim and benefit from the tax reliefs.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend; he is being very generous, though whenever I am tackled on a point of logic by a professor of philosophy, I wonder what is going on. But my question is quite an innocent one in this case. In Harwich, there are some businesses very near the tax sites which have been affected by Brexit and would benefit greatly from being included in the tax site. To what extent are the boundaries still adjustable, and is there an issue of principle regarding included businesses that could expand much more effectively? I am thinking of the particular example of a petrochemicals processing business, which exports substantially and would benefit very greatly by being in the tax site. It would generate many more jobs and much more wealth for the United Kingdom.

[Jesse Norman]

Of course, the circumstances for each individual freeport site will be, and I am sure are, very different. I cannot comment on the site my hon. Friend describes, but in general the emphasis of the legislation is very much on new investment and new development, rather than on existing or dead-weight investment. It may well be the case that there are businesses that would propose to make substantial new investments and, depending on the freeport in question, it may be possible for them to qualify for some of the benefits associated with that, but, again, it is not possible for me to comment on individual cases.

Clause 110 and schedule 21 will allow businesses in freeport tax sites in Great Britain to benefit from two new capital allowances: enhanced capital allowances and an enhanced structures and buildings allowance.

On clause 111 and schedule 22, the clause makes changes to provide for a new relief from stamp duty land tax for acquisitions of land and buildings situated in freeport tax sites in England that are used for qualifying commercial purposes. Relief will be available for purchases made from the date a freeport tax site is formally designated until 30 September 2026.

Amendments 43 to 52 amend the provisions introduced by clause 111 and schedule 22 to provide certainty that property investors using sharia-compliant alternative finance are able to benefit from stamp duty land tax relief in the same way as investors using conventional finance. That will be done by taxing the alternative finance intermediary’s acquisition as though it were an acquisition by the investor. The amendments ensure that the tax payable by someone using alternative finance is the same as that which would be payable were the property purchased using a conventional financial product.

Opposition Members have tabled two new clauses relating to clauses 109 to 111. Among other things, they would place additional eligibility criteria in respect of employment rights, equalities and the environment on the claiming of capital allowances and stamp duty land tax relief in freeports. It is important to say that freeports will deliver tangible benefits that will help to level up areas. By imposing those additional criteria, the new clauses would potentially delay the implementation of these measures by making freeports more complicated for businesses to navigate, and therefore reducing their impact and effectiveness. In any case, the Government have a very strong commitment to reducing carbon emissions, which is why this country was the first major economy to implement a legally binding net zero greenhouse gas emissions target by 2050. The Government will continue to ensure that the role of tax is considered alongside other policy measures needed to meet environmental goals.

As I have already indicated, freeports will also have an important role in reducing regional disparities. The rigorous assessment of bids that has been undertaken has ensured that tax benefits are available only in areas that require regeneration and would benefit from being a tax site, helping the Government to level up those that have been left behind.

New clauses 5 and 25 as tabled would have the following effect. New clause 5 would make the commencements of clauses 109 to 111 dependent on the Secretary of State publishing a report that would allow Members to assess the economic case for freeports, and on both Houses agreeing that report. New clause 25 contains a similar request for a review of the impact of clauses 109 to 111 and schedules 21 and 22, and for a report of that review to be laid before the House within six months of the passing of this Bill and once a year thereafter. A robust and transparent bid assessment process, using the criteria set out in the bidding prospectus, ensured that the eight English freeports so far granted all demonstrated a good or better economic case, including a strong economic rationale for their proposed tax site locations.

In the interest of transparency and accountability, the Government have also published a decision-making note that clearly sets out how sustainable economic growth and regeneration were prioritised in this process of assessment. The Government will publish costings of the freeports programme at the next fiscal event, in line with conventional practice. Imposing an additional economic incentive on top of what has been outlined would only risk delaying the delivery of the programme and therefore the associated benefits of the increased investment and employment.

Amendment 54 would make the commencement of a freeport tax site in any UK nation subject to approval by the three devolved Administrations. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) has already introduced that. Let me say to him that tax is first and foremost a reserved matter unless it is specifically devolved. The UK Government have the power to set tax sites that offer reserved tax reliefs across the UK, and Ministers for the devolved Administrations have the power to set devolved tax reliefs. Devolved Ministers will be accountable to their Parliaments for the use of tax instruments under their control in a freeport tax site within their nation under the proposed plans.

The Government are determined to establish freeports across the UK, not just in England. That is why we are committed to continuing discussions with the Administrations in Scotland and Wales, when their new Governments have been established, and with the Northern Ireland Executive. The Government intend to have a freeport in each nation, and are determined to deliver that as soon as practicable. They will be national hubs for trade, innovation and commerce, regenerating communities across the country. They can attract new businesses and spread jobs, investment and opportunity to towns and cities up and down the UK, which will boost international trade and economic growth.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Wil my right hon. Friend give way?

[Jesse Norman]

I am happy to take a third intervention from my hon. Friend.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I am most grateful. Well, it is the Committee stage of a Bill. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) raised an issue that I had not considered before, which is that the provision of a freeport in a devolved nation might actually reduce the revenue being collected by that devolved Government. Has my right hon. Friend given consideration to that? I cannot see how that would actually happen, but will he give an assurance that there is a means of addressing that if it were to occur?

[Jesse Norman]

As far as I am aware, this is a very remote contingency and I see no evidence to suggest that it might be the case in the context that has been described, but I can certainly tell my hon. Friend that, when the Government engage with the Welsh Government, we will be sensitive and open to discussion of the potential economic effects of a freeport in Wales, as one might expect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Thomson]

I would like to add my support for the Opposition amendments and to seek a commitment from the Government, while the Minister is here, to allow the Scottish Government after the Scottish elections to move ahead with their greenports adaptation of the freeports concept. Freeports do not require Brexit in order to be brought about, and legitimate questions remain about how much additional economic activity they will actually generate, rather than simply displace from other areas of the economy.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Richard Thomson]

It is very early but yes, of course.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. There was a freeport in Shannon in the Republic of Ireland before the Republic of Ireland joined the European Economic Community. The tax freedoms that it was granting at the Shannon freeport were significantly curtailed as a result of joining the EEC, because the EEC prevented it from providing those freedoms. That is why we are discussing the question as to whether or not we are using the new freedoms we have, but the fact is we have much more tax freedom outside the EU for freeports than we had when we were in the EU, and hopefully Scotland will benefit from that.

[Richard Thomson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but I think my point still stands. No matter what the spirit of truth might be in his remarks about how constraints were placed on the Shannon free zone, there are freeports in the European Union. Freeports are not something that intrinsically require Brexit of itself in order to be able to be pursued. But certainly I hope there are benefits for Scotland from this. I think those benefits can be manifested best perhaps through the greenports approach, which I would like to expand upon.

As I say, the Scottish Government have developed their own version, the greenports, which seeks to embrace all the potential benefits that could come through freeports, while aligning that with ensuring the principles of fair work are enshrined, ensuring that workers within the greenports are paid a real living wage and that the reduction of carbon emissions is embedded at the heart of those developments. A re-elected Scottish National party Government will seek to implement those greenports, making public sector support contingent on businesses complying with that fair work first agenda, paying that real living wage and implementing the Scottish business pledge: our values-led partnership between Government and business based on boosting productivity competitiveness through fairness, equality and sustainable employment, and on delivering on concrete plans to reduce carbon emissions in line with supporting the Scottish Government’s ambition to reach net zero by 2045.

The Scottish Government proposals for these economic development zones already have widespread buy-in from stakeholders, who are desperate to start bidding to run the greenports. It was heartening to hear from the Minister his commitment to seeing freeports in all parts of the UK. Nevertheless, if the people of Scotland choose to re-elect a Scottish National party Government, the Government need to accept the mandate that comes from that and, if there has been an element of heel dragging, to hasten the process of coming to an agreement on the rules around these proposed greenports so that the bidding can begin immediately.

Having taken positive steps to end the race to the bottom on corporate taxation, as we heard in an earlier debate, I think it is important that the UK Government do not allow those who take advantage of freeport status to neglect or otherwise elude their obligations to the workforce, to the environment and to the building of long-term, sustainable value in the regions where they are located and the wider economy.

In the year that the world is coming to Scotland to plan our future at the COP summit, I think it is absolutely fitting that we should be able to develop greenports to demonstrate our ambitions on sustainable, inclusive economic growth as we transition to a net zero economy. A fair, sustainable greenport model can be an exemplar of those values, while adding value to Scottish goods, services and the country’s brand. The UK Government, once the Scottish elections are over, need to get on board with this and back the innovative approach of the Scottish Government model so that we can get the bidding process under way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney [V]]

I wish to speak to clauses 109 to 111 relating to the powers to designate sites as freeports and associated provisions.

This has been a turbulent year for the UK economy, with the expected disruption of Brexit and the unexpected and unprecedented impact of the coronavirus pandemic. Now that we can, hopefully, look forward to the end of the pandemic and its associated lockdowns, it is time for the Government to put forward their bold and radical plans for kickstarting the UK economy to enable growth and skilled employment in all corners of the country.

The Government have had plenty of time to think about how they plan to deliver the benefits of Brexit that we have all been promised. I expected the Chancellor to jump at the chance to realise those benefits through the Budget and this Bill—and he has delivered freeports. This is it: the big idea, the bold move, the economic leap forward that our freedom from EU shackles has finally granted us. Except, of course, we have always had the freedom to initiate freeports in this country. We last had them in 2012. The reason we have not had them since is that their economic impact has previously proved to be negligible.

Research into freeports in other countries has shown that they do little to boost exports as opposed to imports, and there is very little evidence that they create new economic activity as opposed to redirecting existing economic activity from elsewhere. This risks trappings thousands of workers in insecure work with reduced rights, in areas with reducing opportunities for alternative employment. Any increased economic performance arising from freeports is therefore unlikely to trickle down to higher living standards in local households and communities.

What is the plan for economic growth in areas of the UK that are not lucky enough to have been awarded a freeport? The Budget and this Bill are silent on that matter. Elsewhere, the Government have scrapped their industrial strategy, replacing it with a glossy brochure full of photographs but very little content. More seriously, there has been no real attempt to quantify the impact of leaving the EU on UK business and trade, and what that might mean for our economy as a whole.

We have already seen a big short-term impact on the level of trade across the channel. It will take a while for the full picture to emerge, clouded as it is at the moment by the pandemic and the unwinding of pre-Brexit stockpiles, but there is no doubt that the increased paperwork is an expensive burden on our small businesses—and that is before import controls are introduced and the impact of the scrapping of mutual recognition of professional qualifications has been fully realised.

The UK economy has a difficult road ahead, and nothing in the Budget or this Bill demonstrates that the Government have a plan to lead us to new sources of productivity or prosperity. The Liberal Democrats are not opposed in principle to freeports, but they are not a sufficient solution to the current challenges of our economy. They fall a long way short of what is required to compensate for our leaving the EU and to restart our economy in the wake of the pandemic. Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I am very pleased, Dame Eleanor—if I may address you correctly—to make common cause with the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) at the outset. We can agree that freeports are necessary but not sufficient to deal with regional disparities and levelling up.

I am none the wiser from the contribution by the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) whether the Labour party is in favour of freeports or against them. I would just point out to her that I spent a certain amount of my period in opposition, which was a miserable 13 years, as shadow Secretary of State for the regions, and though the Labour party was elected in 1997 with a very sincere determination to reduce economic disparities between London and the other regions of England and the other parts of the United Kingdom, it failed, and those disparities got wider.

This is a very difficult thing to address, and the answer is that we should use every tool in the box. We should use every tool we possibly can. It is also perfectly clear that all the tools are not available if a country stays in the European Union. Some of the tools were taken away from the Republic of Ireland at its Shannon freeport when it joined the European Economic Community, and it got worse; the notion that tax advantages or tax incentives were artificial tax subsidies was extended.

Of course, we want to see other tax advantages extended to other parts of the United Kingdom, such as differential rates of corporation tax, which we have extended to Northern Ireland, but only with the permission of the European Union to treat Ireland as a separate entity—which has a double edge to it that we perhaps do not want to pursue. We should be able to do that on a sovereign basis and to bring Ireland into the sovereignty of the rest of the United Kingdom in the longer term.

I wish to emphasise that the freeport east was very much driven by the need for levelling up. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) nodding in sympathy, because she shares this problem. The perception is, “Oh, you’re in the rich south-east. You don’t need any help. It all needs to be directed to other parts of the United Kingdom.” Well, I can tell the House that I have red wall voters in my own constituency. Places like Clacton, Jaywick and Harwich are hard bitten by economic decline. Average weekly earnings in Tendring district, which is Clacton and Harwich, are £556, compared with a GB average of £587, and incidentally below the rate in Liverpool, which is historically regarded as deprived. We have a project that could generate, we hope, 13,500 jobs. The hon. Member for Richmond Park and others are right: we have to make sure that the minimum is substitution and the maximum is additionality. That is the challenge of making sure this works.

I will concentrate on what is in the Bill. I very much welcome the tax provisions in clauses 109 to 111, but there are bits missing from the Government’s additional proposals. Not mentioned in the Bill are the enhanced structures and buildings allowances, or the lower national insurance contributions, or the business rate reliefs proposed in freeport sites, or the local retention of business rates, so I remain concerned that we are offering only what is allowed under EU state aid rules. I will be grateful if the Minister, when he replies to the debate, addresses those points and says how those other tax reliefs will be provided.

It is worth mentioning that the Shannon freeport zone was regarded as such a success that it was imitated and adopted by China, which now has a freeport zone programme that it regards as an important enhancement of its economic competitiveness. I ask those who are cynical about freeports to open their minds, to look at the successful freeports and free trade zones around the world, and to learn from them, as well as listening to what one might call the “economic statics”—the people who think everything is about substitution and nothing is about releasing additional creativity.

I take seriously the points raised by the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead about compliance with the necessary conventions, such as authorised economic operator certification, World Free Zones Organisation safe zones rules and the OECD code of conduct for clean free trade zones. Those are all important, but let us recognise that, unless we avail ourselves of all the freedoms available to freeports, they will not deliver the benefits we want. I am reminded that when he was a Back-Bench Member of Parliament, the current Chancellor produced a very interesting report, “The Free Ports Opportunity”, which was published by the Centre for Policy Studies, price £10, which was rather more radical than the Treasury’s current offering. Some of us are a little worried that we will not see that enthusiasm and radicalism. Let us go step by step, let us work incrementally —that is not a criticism, but this is something to build on for the future.

Let us also recognise that the real benefit of freeports is not the tax incentives, but the customs facilitation. We must have really modern electronic customs systems to make the customs advantages of being in what is called a customs inversion zone real. Otherwise, it becomes a bureaucratic nightmare and we will not get the advantages we should get from it. Also, if it is a bureaucratic nightmare, it is the less savoury elements who benefit, not the legitimate businesses.

That is the challenge. We have a great opportunity, for which I really thank the Government in respect of my constituency and others. Incidentally, I think the freeports around the United Kingdom—this is a United Kingdom policy—should be working together. I wonder whether the MPs who represent the freeports that have been designated should get together, stop this mutual suspicion—which is understandable, as we have been competing for designation—and start working together to press the Government for the positive changes that will benefit all our freeports in the future.

[Rebecca Long Bailey [V]]

I will limit my brief comments to freeports. Detailed Government assessments on the operation and impact of freeports are sadly not yet available. As we have heard tonight, the OBR has stated that the announcements made in the Budget came too late to be incorporated into its forecast. If the Government recognise this, they must understand that they have a duty to provide such evidence and legislative reassurance in response to legitimate and wide-ranging concerns on the operation and impact of freeports.

There are concerns that, rather than complementing a local economy by stimulating the growth of new business, existing businesses may simply opt to relocate to freeports. Certainly, the Government have not made it clear how they will mitigate against the significant geographic movement of jobs away from one area and into a freeport—how they will avoid a wild-west scenario of pitting regions against each other, nor the prospect of lost revenue for local authorities from business rates, for example, if businesses opt to relocate to such a zone.

The job creation numbers are equally sketchy. The Chancellor argued back in 2016 that if the UK’s approach performs as well as that in the USA, freeports would create more than 86,000 jobs, but as the Centre for Progressive Policy found, this figure was a cut-and-paste job, being simply the number of people employed in the US free zones adjusted for the relative size of the UK population. There was no data on the labour market impact on specific regional economies or industries, nor any mention of the need for bespoke local skill strategies to feed into this.

On workers’ rights, the TUC has repeatedly warned about the gradual erosion of workers’ protections in these zones. It stated:

“Free ports are a Trojan Horse to water down employment protections”—

in a “race to the bottom”.

Finally, as we have heard tonight, there are real concerns that freeports could create a bonanza for money launderers and tax evaders. Indeed, the EU reported in 2018 that freeports were

“conducive to secrecy. With their preferential treatment, they resemble offshore financial centres, offering both high security and discretion and allowing transactions to be made without attracting the attention of regulators or direct tax authorities.”

The Government must address these concerns before pressing ahead. To that end, new clauses 5 and 25 would allow the Government to create an evidence base for freeports, which the House can then examine, and new clause 4 would impose standards and protections. If the Government are serious about addressing these concerns and building in clear legal protections, they will support these new clauses tonight.

Economic Update

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Monday 11th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

I thank the hon. Member for her response, and in particular for her comments about my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), which I appreciate.

I think that it is right, where possible in this House, that we acknowledge those areas—many areas, in fact—where there is agreement on both sides of the House: for example, on wage support, on business support, on loan guarantees, on funding for critical public services, on tax deferrals and tax cuts, on support for renters and homeowners, on support for job creation, retraining and skills, on support for children learning at home, on support for the self-employed, on support for the NHS, on support for the vaccination roll-out, and on testing. I could go on. The truth is that, politics aside, there is in fact significant unity of purpose in this place: to protect the most vulnerable; to vaccinate our people as quickly as possible; to reopen our country; and, finally, to rebuild and begin the process of recovery. Given this agreement, while it is right to acknowledge the difference in degrees and emphasis that the hon. Member poses, it is clear that on the fundamentals there is, in fact, little disagreement.

Let me turn to the shadow Chancellor’s specific areas of concern. With regard to the formula for the local authority grants, I can tell her—as was, I think, published—that the formula for the additional half a billion pounds will be the same as that for the £1.1 billion that was issued shortly before the end of last year. With regard to the furlough dates, she will be pleased to know that the change in date from the original spring date through to the new date at the end of October, before the announcement of the new scheme and the extension, will bring an additional 3 million people into coverage for the furlough scheme. I am sure that she will join me in welcoming that the scheme has protected more than 9 million jobs over the past several months. It is, of course, already possible for people to be furloughed if they are clinically extremely vulnerable or have childcare difficulties, but those decisions are, of course, to be made by individual employers and their employees. It would not be right for the Government to put a blanket mandate in place. The hon. Member is right that the Budget is the appropriate place to consider her various other questions, given the scale of the response and the fact that all our major avenues of support have been extended through to the spring.

The hon. Member made a comment about this country having experienced the worst recession out of anyone. It is important in this place that people have the right facts, particularly when those facts impact people’s confidence and understanding of what is happening. I must gently point out some facts, which I am sure the hon. Member knows, because she will have studied this carefully. She will know that, when making international comparisons between the performance of our economy and others, it is important that we are careful because everybody calculates things in very different ways. Indeed, as the Office for Budget Responsibility mentioned in its latest report—which I am sure she will be able to read—and as the Office for National Statistics has highlighted, in this country we calculate public sector output very differently from almost any other country. It is very clear that the way in which we calculate that output flatters other countries and disadvantages us when it comes to making such comparisons. As those independent forecasters have pointed out, when corrected for that difference, we find that our economic performance is actually very much in line with comparable countries. It is not the worst, and I do not think that it is good for confidence or for people’s understanding of the situation for that to be propagated.

Throughout this crisis the Government have always been pragmatic. When changes must be made, we have made them, and when help has been justified, we have always provided it. We are now so close to the end of this difficult period for so many people that I would ask the hon. Member at this time to recognise that the national interest is best served by our co-operation, not partisanship. The vaccine roll-out is the most important priority of this Government and provides us with the path to getting out of this situation, protecting people’s health and releasing the restrictions that are hampering our economic recovery. That should be our focus—I know she will agree with me on that—and it is in that spirit, in the best traditions of this House, that I hope we will be able to see out this crisis in the coming months.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con) [V]]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I welcome the continuation of the vital measures to support British business through this further period, while keeping an eye on the hospitality sector and small businesses, which continue to have a very hard time and may need extra help.

May I invite my right hon. Friend to recall how we had to put VAT on to energy-saving products before we left the European Union, because of European Union rules? Having struck VAT off sanitary products, can we look at other opportunities to use our freedoms now that we have left the EU to strike VAT off energy-saving products such as solar panels and home insulation, in order to promote the greener recovery that we want to see emerging from this crisis?

[Rishi Sunak]

I thank my hon. Friend for his advice and for the helpful information about the hospitality industry that he provided me with over the winter period. It has been helpful in formulating our response and I thank him for it. I also appreciate his thoughts on future tax policy, which he will know remains for the Budget. He is right to emphasise the importance of our green recovery, which was why I was pleased to make sure that we can fully fund, with £12 billion, the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan for a green recovery, of which ensuring that we upgrade the efficiency of our buildings with regard to heat and energy is a key part, with more than £1 billion put aside for that. I will bear my hon. Friend’s further thoughts in mind.

UK-EU Future Relationship Negotiations and Transition Period

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Monday 7th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

The hon. Gentleman has surpassed himself today. As someone who has worked very hard with Mike Russell and other colleagues to ensure that their views and ideas are taken up by the negotiating team, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that throughout the course of the negotiations the position has evolved to take on board many aspects of what his colleagues have been asking for—for example, participation in programmes. The team changed their original position and have gone in to negotiate very hard on things that they have asked for. If we have good news in the coming days, I hope that he will give the UK Government the entire credit.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Government point out to our European partners that under their own treaty there cannot be any kind of deliberate go-slow or disruption of UK exports to the continent, whether or not we have a free trade agreement, because under their own treaty they are obliged to pursue free and fair trade with their neighbours, and, under article 8(1), to pursue good neighbourliness? Both the UK and the European Union have also signed up to the trade facilitation agreement at the World Trade Organisation, which obliges us to ensure that trade flows and does not get blocked by people doing box-ticking exercises, which are basically unnecessarily.

[Penny Mordaunt]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and is absolutely right. If our European partners were to do such a thing, they would also be disadvantaging the businesses in their own member states.

Covid-19: Economy Update

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

I would not consider that providing £200 billion of total support could ever be accused of doing anything on the cheap. That money has gone to support public services like the NHS, and people’s jobs, livelihoods and businesses. I commit to this House that we will continue to do everything that is required, and continue to adapt and evolve as the circumstances demand.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for bringing forward this package, for listening and for acting in the interests of the economy. Is it not essential that we align the interests of business and the economy with the interests of controlling the virus, rather than let those become polar opposites in argument with each other? Can we perhaps draw back from some of the partisanship that has soured relations over the past few days, because that does not do any good for public confidence in how we are all tackling this very difficult and wearing crisis?

[Rishi Sunak]

Those are wise words from my hon. Friend. He is right to highlight the importance, in this House and elsewhere, of our adopting a constructive and collegiate approach to tackling what is clearly a national crisis, and one that we will get through. We will get through it by working together and emerging stronger on the other side.

Economic Update

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, and I add my voice to those highlighting the plight of self-employed people, or people who have been remunerating themselves through dividends and have not been able to benefit from the furlough scheme, as raised by my right hon. Friend the Chair of the Treasury Committee in a recent report, but may I thank him wholeheartedly for what he has done for the hospitality sector, which will help coastal communities such as those in Harwich and North Essex? It is a big boost for jobs and employment.

[Rishi Sunak]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. He is absolutely right. We are approaching a summer unlike any we have ever seen, and it is important that we all enjoy it safely. It will be different, but it is vital for our coastal communities and those used to welcoming visitors from home and abroad that they get to have a proper summer, and we can help collectively by eating out to help out. It is critical to remember that the 2 million people who work in these industries are particularly vulnerable and often are in areas that are not necessarily as resilient as others. They need our support so let us get out there this summer.

Coronavirus: Employment Support

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

The right hon. Gentleman makes some specific points essentially about the consequential effects on different groups of employees who are affected. I cannot comment on the details of that. As for the timing of the employment support announcement, we are working on it as quickly as we can. There is no timetable or specific date because we have got to get it right. We are working as urgently as possible, but I cannot tell him the precise moment at this point.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) for his urgent question and endorse everything he said. Those of us who are not in the engine room of Government are being told by our constituents that, welcome though Tuesday’s package was, it is simply not going to be enough. When diehards such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) and Allister Heath of The Daily Telegraph are lining up for far more radical measures than the Government have yet announced, the Government must take note. May I urge the Government to say something today to give people assurance that the help will come?

[John Glen]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his observations. He is right, but there is no sense that the Government are saying that what we have announced is the last announcement we are going to make. It is a question of making sure that when we announce measures, they will be effective in meeting the needs that we know exist. All of us, across the House, will have been inundated with emails from concerned individuals and businesses. We are taking that on board and acting as swiftly as we can. The points raised today are directly informing the nature of our response.