Northern Ireland Protocol

David Jones Excerpts

Thursday 15th July 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) on securing this important debate, which highlights the problems sadly afflicting the people of Northern Ireland as a consequence of the protocol. As he pointed out, the purposes of the protocol ostensibly are benign. The problem is the effect that the application of the protocol is having on the constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom, and the day-to-day lives of the people of Northern Ireland.

It should not be necessary to state this, but it is fundamental to remember that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom. It became so as a consequence of the Act of Union 1800, article 6 of which effectively provides that citizens of Great Britain and Northern Ireland shall be entitled to the same privileges in respect of trade. I am conscious of the proceedings currently going on in Belfast, but it is fair to say that equal treatment and trade with the rest of the UK, as a consequence of the 1800 Act, became a constitutional right of Northern Ireland citizens, and so it should be.

There is little doubt that the European Union is insisting on an over-assiduous interpretation of the protocol, which is resulting in disruption to trade and everyday life in Northern Ireland. Furthermore, and arguably even more worryingly, the protocol is imperilling the Belfast agreement, which for more than 20 years has been the guarantee of peace in Northern Ireland. It must be perfectly apparent to the European Union that the officious, over-punctilious application of the protocol is having those effects.

We are not talking about major movements of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland; by and large we are talking about small movements of goods, frequently for personal consumption, which are necessary for the continuation of life in Northern Ireland. This is already having a profound and adverse effect on the stability of civil society in Northern Ireland, which must be a matter of huge concern.

As the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) pointed out, the Belfast agreement is being threatened by the EU’s purist approach to the protocol. Even more ironic is the fact that the EU justifies that approach by saying that it does so in order to defend the Belfast agreement. There have, of course, been some extensions to the grace periods provided for in the withdrawal agreement, but in reality those will be of no long-term benefit, and may result in a permanent diversion of established trade between the constituent parts of the United Kingdom.

It is fortunate that the protocol itself foresees that such problems may arise and therefore makes provision for addressing them. Article 16 sets up a safeguards procedure, which may be invoked unilaterally by either side in the event that the application of the protocol is leading to

“serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade”.

It is clear that those conditions currently prevail in Northern Ireland. I therefore also urge the Government to consider very carefully invoking article 16 in order to address and, it is to be hoped, to cure the problem, but this could be avoided if the EU were to adopt a more proportionate approach to the protocol’s implementation. The EU might also wish to consider the sensible proposals that are outlined in the excellent document to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) has just referred.

What is absolutely certain is that we simply cannot continue like this. For the good of Northern Ireland, for the maintenance of the Belfast agreement and for the integrity of the Union, this issue must be resolved, and if the EU continues to refuse to co-operate then the only course remaining to the Government is to invoke article 16, and that is what I strongly urge them to do.

Covid-19: Government Transparency and Accountability

David Jones Excerpts

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Commons Chamber

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

The covid pandemic, as we all know, has had the most devastating impact on the health and economy of our nation. It has also placed the most enormous strains on the administration of government. The pandemic is a phenomenon unprecedented in the lifetimes of most of us who are alive today. There was no real precedent to work to. There was no playbook. It was therefore inevitable that dealing with it would present huge challenges to medicines, science and Government.

Crucial to the response to the pandemic is the collation and analysis of data. The Committee’s report rightly praises the work of those officials who set up new data collection and management systems. In particular, I commend the work of the Office for National Statistics, the central part of which is the community infection survey, which provides a clear picture of the prevalence of the virus across the whole of the UK. Over the period of the pandemic, that picture has improved significantly in clarity.

The report rightly concentrates on and highlights the importance of transparency of data. In any democracy whose citizens are being asked, indeed instructed, to give up a large number of their inherent freedoms to keep their fellow citizens safe, it must be essential that the rationale for such instructions is readily available and understandable. That is only achievable through access to the data that underpin, or are claimed to underpin, the decisions the Government are making. Furthermore, citizens need to be assured that in making those decisions the Government are using the available data for the right reasons and in the right manner.

In this context, the Government have rightly been criticised for the way certain elements of data were used, or indeed misused. Arguably, the most egregious example of what I would categorise as the misuse of data was the press briefing on 31 October 2020, when the second lockdown was announced. Data projecting up to 4,000 deaths a day were cited, even though the data were never intended for public consumption, were based on extreme assumptions and were out of date by the time they were used.

Evidence to the inquiry suggested that on occasions such tinkering with the figures had seemingly been done for political purposes. The Committee heard, for example, that the target of achieving 100,000 tests per day was met by adding tests that had been sent out to tests completed—in other words, double counting.

Whether that was a genuine error or politically motivated, it cannot be acceptable.

The report points out:

“The first principle of the UKSA Code of Practice for the use of statistics is ‘Trustworthiness’.”

The UKSA code requires that

“Statistics, data and explanatory material should be presented impartially and objectively.”

However, the ministerial code requires only that

“Ministers need to be mindful of the UK Statistics Authority’s Code of Practice”—

it almost invites bending the rules. The report therefore rightly advises:

“The Ministerial Code needs to be strengthened so it is clear that Ministers are required to abide by the UKSA Code of Practice in their presentation of data.”

Of course, there is frequently a temptation for politicians to try to give the impression that they have all the answers. However, one of the most interesting pieces of evidence that the Committee received was that

“admitting uncertainty is unlikely to undermine the public response and might have a positive impact.”

Furthermore, if people have less trust in Government and the science behind the response to the pandemic, they are

“less likely to follow rules and guidance”.

The shocking, perhaps revolutionary lesson is therefore that to transmit most effectively the conclusions of data analysis, honesty is the best policy.

Arguably, data has never been a more important element of the governance of this country than in the past 15 months. I have no doubt that when the pandemic is over, extensive “lessons learned” exercises will be undertaken both by the Government and by various Committees of this House. I very much hope that they will consider not only the extent to which data should underpin decisions, as I believe it always should, but the way in which that data should be communicated.

The fundamental point of the Committee’s report is that absolute transparency in communicating information is essential to provide the best public response. When people are asked to give up their liberties, they need to be told why. Regrettably, for a variety of reasons—which, to be clear, were not always disreputable—that has not always been the case over the past year and a quarter.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

The Government recognise the important role that the aviation sector plays in the UK economy. The sector can draw on the wide range of support measures available, including the recently announced airport and ground operations support scheme, which will provide eligible firms with support of up to £8 million per claimant. However, I reassure my hon. Friend that we remain committed to delivering the consultation, and will look to proceed once the challenging circumstances that the sector is currently facing have eased.

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

What steps he has taken to help ensure adequate funding for the NHS in Wales.

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)]

As healthcare is devolved, it is for the Welsh Government to ensure that the NHS in Wales has enough funding, using the over £20 billion of funding they receive from the UK Government through the Barnett formula.

[Mr Jones [V]]

The covid-19 vaccination programme in Wales is unfortunately lagging behind England, but despite that, the Welsh First Minister has announced that he intends to slow the release of vaccine to avoid, as he puts it, vaccinators

“standing around with nothing to do”.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that there are no financial constraints that he is aware of that would justify this perverse and irrational policy decision or prevent the Welsh Government from deploying the vaccine as quickly in Wales as in any part of the country?

[Steve Barclay]

I am happy to confirm to my right hon. Friend that there are not financial constraints. The UK Government have guaranteed that the Welsh Government will receive at least £5.2 billion in additional resource to deliver their coronavirus response, including the vaccine deployment activities.

Lockdown: Economic Support

David Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

I will take away the fair point that the hon. Gentleman raises about publishing guidance and seek to respond to it constructively. In terms of the £20 a head, often representations have been made to me in the Chamber that it is vital for the Government to move at pace to deliver schemes quickly, and to do so fairly. Without reprising the previous urgent question where the Mayor of Greater Manchester, according to the Labour Front-Bench team, was acting for Great Britain in a way that the Mayor of the Liverpool city region and others were not, which I felt was an unfair characterisation of their position, the point is that we need to deploy schemes quickly, which is why we have taken the approach that we have.

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

I am sorry, at the end of this session, to have to raise the issue of furlough yet again but, as my right hon. Friend knows, the economies of north Wales and the north-west of England are very closely integrated and Welsh tourism and leisure businesses in particular are heavily dependent on trade from across that border. The Welsh lockdown imposed by the Welsh Government is due to come to an end on 9 November—some four days after the lockdown in England is anticipated to begin. Welsh leisure and tourism businesses will not be precluded from reopening by the Welsh Government, but in reality it will be purposeless for them to do so because the trade from England will not be there. Can my right hon. Friend say whether Welsh businesses that are affected by lockdown measures imposed in England will be able to access the coronavirus job retention scheme?

[Steve Barclay]

I know that my right hon. Friend is a strong supporter of the Union and part of the strength of the furlough scheme has been its ability to provide support across the United Kingdom; it is a UK-wide scheme. Thanks to the Treasury’s ability to operate a UK-wide scheme, we have been able to put in place more than £200 billion of support—the comprehensive package that I mentioned a moment ago—which is why it stands international comparison in terms of its scale and speed. That was recognised by the IMF director just last week, and the furlough will continue to be a UK-wide scheme.

Public Health Restrictions: Government Economic Support

David Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

I do not think it is acceptable to have a “fire and rehire” culture. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) put it very well in his question, and I echo those sentiments. This is an area of common ground across the House. The package of measures we have put in place is to retain the link between a worker and their business, and that is very much the Government’s approach.

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

My right hon. Friend may remember that I raised with him last week the issue of tourism businesses in north Wales, which have been severely impacted by the decision of the Welsh Government to impose movement restrictions. Many of those businesses now face the prospect of closure, but they are not being required to close by the Government, and there is little help being offered by the Welsh Government. The expansion of the job support scheme last week was welcome, but that only benefits businesses that have been required to close by the relevant Administration. What further support can Her Majesty’s Government offer to Welsh tourism businesses, which are so badly affected by the current state of affairs?

[Steve Barclay]

Among the range of measures that we have put in place as support, one speaks directly to my right hon. Friend’s issue, which is the rent support of up to £3,000 for businesses that are forced to close. The Welsh Government can then use Barnett consequential funding to support businesses and to design a scheme as they see fit, but it is for the Welsh Government to design those schemes, not the UK Government. That is what devolution entails. What we have done through the comprehensive package of measures that we have put in place is ensure that there is Barnett consequential funding to allow the Welsh Government to put that support in place.

Areas with Additional Public Health Restrictions: Economic Support

David Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 6th October 2020 Commons Chamber

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

The Welsh Government have imposed movement restrictions in four north Wales counties, an area where tourism and hospitality are the mainstay of the economy. That has had an immediate adverse effect on local businesses, some of which have closed, maybe never to open again. Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Welsh Government have been in touch with the Treasury to outline what financial measures they intend to put in place to compensate the businesses that have been so badly affected by this action?

[Steve Barclay]

I am not aware of any specific representations in respect of the individual case that my right hon. Friend refers to. The wider point I would make is that it is important across the United Kingdom as a whole that decisions on local lockdowns are shaped by the Joint Biosecurity Centre so that we have a consistency of approach that is led by the medical science, and then, on the basis of that, the Treasury can have discussions about any individual issues that arise from that advice from the Joint Biosecurity Centre.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

David Jones Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2018 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leaving the EU: Economic Analysis

David Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 28th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

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

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

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

[Mel Stride]

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

Exiting the EU: Costs

David Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

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

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

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

[Elizabeth Truss]

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

Mortgages: Eligibility

David Jones Excerpts

Monday 23rd October 2017 Westminster Hall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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