House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Jesse Norman Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 15th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

What a pleasure it is to follow the hon. Lady’s immensely accomplished speech. She is absolutely right that politics and Parliament can be a force for good—particularly, to go into the detail of what she said, when people are driven by a shared sense of fairness.

I shall speak today about legitimacy, efficacy, dignity and continuity. First, I will deal with legitimacy. Authority is legitimately exercised by those of us here who are elected, but not all those who exercise authority are elected, and not all legitimacy depends on direct reference to the people. The right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) serves as a Government Minister who is appointed by His Majesty, and was chosen to serve by his Government and his party. He is elected to this place as a Member of Parliament, but he is not elected as a Minister; he is appointed, and exercises all kinds of power on that basis. I do not challenge his legitimacy; I accept it as part of our democratic settlement. Under our separation of powers, many people exercise authority who are not elected at all. Judges are not elected, but are appointed on the basis of their competence, knowledge and experience, and they exercise power using their wisdom.

All of us in this Chamber know of authority derived not from election or from the people. A lot of people here will be parents. Mothers and fathers exercise all kinds of authority, but they are not chosen to do so by those over whom they have that authority. We might call that authority by accident of birth, or at least of someone else’s birth. Authority and legitimacy need to be debated in a much more measured way than they have been in the debate so far.

I have heard many wise speeches from all parts of the Chamber over the time I have spent here, and I have heard many daft speeches, too. There is nothing dafter than someone saying that they will vote for a provision that they do not believe in because it makes the House of Lords more democratic, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) did, when it does not in fact make the House of Lords more democratic at all. It is not more democratic to be appointed by a party leader or nominated by one’s peers than it is to be born to sit in the House of Lords. Let us have a sensible and mature debate about this and consider legitimacy in the round.

Let us also talk about efficacy. The House of Lords plays a vital role in our constitution by ensuring that the Government are held to account, and by providing a creative and, by and large, helpful tension with this House. That has not been convenient for Governments of any colour. When I was a Minister in previous Governments, many times I had to negotiate with Members of the upper House—from all parties, by the way—in the same way that I engaged with colleagues from across this House to get legislation through. That tension is critical, because it allows scrutiny of what is brought before this House and agreed here, and by and large the system works. It is awkward and difficult—it is probably not what we would contrive if we were to design a system from scratch, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden) said—but it has proved generally effective over time.

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

rose—

[Sir John Hayes]

I see that my right hon. Friend is itching to intervene.

[Jesse Norman]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent speech. I want to make a simple point, which is that we are naturally respectful of evolution in nature because we see that it leads to progressive improvement, in general, in species, and diversification, but we are extraordinarily foolish when we consider the evolution of our institutions. The House of Lords has become, over time, a remarkably effective scrutineer of legislation, in its diverse ways of selection. He makes an argument on legitimacy; does he share my view that the House of Lords’ legitimacy comes not only from the exercise of authority effectively, but from a certain expectation as to expertise and the degree of care and attention with which people are brought into that House?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

I would be interested to see what amendments come forward, given my right hon. Friend’s remarks. There is a strong argument for having an expectation that if someone is appointed to the Lords, they do their job. That is the kind of amendment that even I, with my deep-rooted conservatism, could be persuaded to support. On the basis of the efficacy argument, the Bill does not do the job.

Let us speak of dignity. Bagehot described the House of Lords as one of the “dignified” aspects of our parliamentary democracy. Let us translate that into what we know about it in our age: debate in the House of Lords tends to be measured; its amendments, though sometimes forceful, by and large are withdrawn in the end in deference to the elected House; and the expertise in the House of Lords is undoubted, as peers are drawn from many parts of our communities. That includes the hereditaries. The parody of hereditary peers, which I suppose is rooted in the old days of backwoodsmen, that they are somehow a privileged elite who take no great interest in the affairs of our nation and bring no great skill to the consideration of those affairs, is just that—a prejudiced parody.

[Jesse Norman]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is always good to have a mention of Bagehot in any constitutional debate. Bagehot draws the distinction between the dignified and the efficient parts of the constitution, but I thought that my right hon. Friend was making an argument that the House of Lords is no less an efficient part of the constitution, because of the effective way in which it scrutinises legislation and, in particular, in which the hereditaries play their role within the House. In a sense, would he not improve on Bagehot’s distinction by blending the two a little in the case of the House of Lords, which he is so ably defending? Does he share my view that, if the Labour party is preparing to nominate vast numbers of its own life peers, it might consider the question of whether they should make a commitment to attend the House for any period of time, rather than just taking the honour and absconding?

[Sir John Hayes]

Dignity and efficiency are not necessarily incompatible—my right hon. Friend personifies their marriage. He is right to say that there is something ugly about the idea of a Government of either party simply stuffing the House of Lords with their friends or donors. Let us be honest: that is not something one can accuse the other side of this Chamber of without acknowledging that it has become a habit in Parliament over time. Let me qualify that for a moment. There is not a power or policy in the history of man that has not understood the importance of patronage.

Patronage is a part of the exercise of power, but the way it is handled—how measured the application of favour is—is a matter of dignity. There is something fundamentally undignified about replacing the relatively small number of hereditary peers who, as I have said, are proven to do a good job. I noticed that when some of them were cited, the Minister, with his usual candour and decency, nodded in approval. Those peers being replaced by placemen seems to me to be fundamentally undignified.

Let us now talk a little about continuity. The House of Lords represents a link to our past. That may trouble some people in this House, but it does not trouble me. I am a Tory, so I believe that society needs to marry a respect for the past, consider the present and meet the needs of “future generations”, in the words of Burke. That connection to what has been is an important part of our constitutional settlement, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere set out. Lord Roberts rightly described the measures before us as

“cutting the link with our collective past that goes back to the period of Magna Carta”.

The Duke of Wellington, who has been referred to favourably already in this debate and whose great-great-great grandfather defeated Napoleon at Waterloo, now sits in the other place. Are we not right to recognise that that legitimises our connection with the past, to use legitimacy in another way? It makes that link real, powerful and, I think, desirable for that reason.

To conclude—notwithstanding begging your favour, Madam Deputy Speaker; I do not want to test your tolerance to its limits—let me say, without acrimony, because I have already made clear that I respect the Minister and his record in this House, that I suspect what drives the Bill is not a desire to maintain dignity, or for greater efficacy, or even the rather narrow-minded view that the only legitimacy that matters is democratic legitimacy, although that does of course matter, but a preoccupation with modernity.

Automotive Industry

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Wednesday 12th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)]

It has been an interesting and absorbing debate, and I thank all those who have taken part in it. I must say that I take my hat off to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds). It is interesting to know that he grew up in Sunderland, and I notice his great affection for the Black Cats—an affection I greatly share—Niall Quinn and the glory days of Peter Reid. Who but the hon. Gentleman could better hark back to the 1990s, and how much does he do so in politics as he does in football? It is a little unnerving to see him newly hirsute—at least in terms of the past year or three. He is getting an unnervingly close resemblance to His late Majesty King George V, which creates a somewhat unnerving impression across the Dispatch Box when one is trying to respond to the important points he makes.

The hon. Gentleman came, as did the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), with a clear agenda for this debate, which was to tell a desperate story of a struggling industry and a country labouring in its automotive manufacturing. Unfortunately, they have both had desperately bad luck in their choice of debate, because those gloomy speeches are made, and the desire for optimism is expressed, and then it turns out that Geely and Renault have today announced a pioneering new investment to become a global leader in new engine technologies. Not only that: it turns out that we just laid the new charge point regulations, which will make it easier than ever to own an EV. Those were widely welcomed, I might add, by Mike Hawes of the SMMT, who was richly quoted today by Opposition Members, and with reason. Fascinatingly, only today, Tesla has announced its intention to become an electricity supplier, which will itself become an enormously important part of that wider systems infrastructure that has been rightly mentioned. What a day to choose to be gloomy on. What a day of good news, and how much that reinforces the picture of an industry that is dealing brilliantly with the challenges and changes to its own circumstances.

[Sarah Owen]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jesse Norman]

I would give way, but I want to respond to the many other points from Members who actually made speeches.

[Sarah Owen]

I made a speech.

[Jesse Norman]

I hope the hon. Lady will let me get to those points first. [Interruption.] We can go on, or Opposition Members can listen to what the Government are trying to say.

The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde talked about low business investment, and he is absolutely right that one should not pick and choose statistics but try to give a full picture. I was, therefore, slightly surprised that he ignored the fact that business investment has grown steadily since 2010. The Institute for Government published a report that tracks the crashing of business investment in this country to the Labour Administration and dates its recovery from 2008 to 2010. That is the picture of business investment that the hon. Gentleman asks us to get to.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) rightly highlighted MIRA. What a great facility that is and what a great testing opportunity it will create for this country over the next few years. He is right to talk about grid connectivity and to mention Triumph Motorcycles, a business that I met only the other day, but he would have wanted to mention the strategic framework, which was announced last year, for electricity provision. If there is a report coming soon—he can speak from his knowledge of that in a Parliamentary Private Secretary context—I can only applaud that.

The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) worried about the roll-out of charge points. I hope she will be reassured by the new regs on charge points, which we have only just laid and which were welcomed by the SMMT and many other players across that industry. I also hope she will be pleased that ChargeUK, representing the charge point operators, has announced that £6 billion will be invested in charge points across the country over the next few years. That is a direct result of the ZEV mandate, which ties the creation of charge point infrastructure to the support for EVs in the systemic way that parties across the House, including the Opposition, recognise. It is those two things that will grow together. It is the ability to aim against that target of specific EV numbers coming into and being sold in this country that creates the priming for private investment, and rightly so.

I was pleased to hear the contribution of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood), who was absolutely right to raise the topic of apprenticeships. As an apprentice in this House, I salute him; he echoed the “Education, education, education” policy of a former Member of this House with “Skills, skills, skills”, which I completely agree are very important. Let me remind him that in my constituency we are pioneering a specialist STEM technology university—the New Model Institute for Technology and Engineering—which is just the thing that can be used to build skills and to prime levelling up across the country.

What a wonderfully fresh and enthusiastic speech from the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson). I was excited to hear it, but tragically it turned out to be a tag-team “curse on both your houses” misery exercise, relitigating Brexit long after that horse has left the stable. That was rightly picked up by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, who did not want to be drawn on Brexit. I understand why: the country took a decision and we are working with the consequences.

The hon. Member for Gordon said that the speech by my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Economic Security—a brilliant speech it was, too—was the length of time it would take to charge an EV. At 35 minutes, that is not quite true, but that is absolutely the ambition that we want to get to for all EV operators across the country. We want people to be able to charge very rapidly while they go and pick up a cup of coffee in the usual way.

I thank the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) for her comment. She asked for a renewable energy focus and was right to do so. I hope that I can reassure her by reminding her that National Grid reported that in 2010 less than 20% of our energy was renewable, while in 2022—last year—more than 50% was renewable in five months of the year. That is tremendous progress. She may also be pleased to know that coal, which was used for 43% of electricity generation in 2012, is now at 1.5%. That is tremendous progress on both those fronts.

[Sarah Owen]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Listening to the Minister’s response, I want to give him the opportunity to correct the record. Not only does he seem not to be living on the same planet as us, but he is clearly not in the same Chamber. He implied that I had not spoken in the debate, but I gave a lengthy speech on the issues we are facing in Luton right now. I invite him to correct the record at the Dispatch Box.

[Jesse Norman]

I would be happy to respond to the hon. Lady. That is not actually what I said. I said that I wanted to respond to the speeches and therefore I would not take interventions at that time. I will of course—[Interruption.] If she would prefer me to respond not to her speech but to an intervention, I will let her make an intervention.

[Sarah Owen]

I thank the Minister for finally allowing an intervention. He talked about optimism. Does he feel optimistic that the manufacturing industry now faces a 10% tariff on passenger cars and a 22% tariff on vans? Does he believe that we should all be optimistic about that future, or does he believe the reality—that the manufacturing industry faces a cliff edge?

[Jesse Norman]

If that is the best the hon. Lady can do, she would have been better to wait for my response to her speech. No, the truth of the matter is that this country is engaged in discussions and negotiations with European partners about the circumstances—we export an enormous number of cars, which is an important fact from their point of view as it is from ours—and it would be futile to discuss those matters in public. We all know that none of these negotiations is ever done in public, and that includes commercial negotiations, which Labour appears to wish to be done in public as well.

Let me proceed a little more. The hon. Members for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins), for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) and for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) touched on new gigafactories. I invite Opposition Front- Bench Members to comment further if they wish, because this is a much-heralded part of the Labour strategy, and if the Labour party seeks to subsidise eight new gigafactories, perhaps they would like to put on record how much public money—taxpayer’s money—they propose to spend on that and how it would be funded. We very much look forward to seeing their plans. I will be interested to see whether they bear any resemblance to market conditions or show any signs of doing anything other than immiserating and impoverishing the British taxpayer.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House recognises that the automotive industry is the jewel in the crown of British manufacturing and believes it can have a bright future creating good jobs for people across the UK; regrets that after 13 years of Conservative neglect the UK risks losing this world-class industry, putting thousands of jobs under threat; condemns the Government for its lack of an industrial strategy and the negative impact this has had on investment in the UK’s automotive sector; calls on the Government to urgently resolve the rules of origin changes which are due to take effect in 2024, working with partners across Europe to negotiate a deal that works for manufacturers; and further calls on the Government to adopt an active industrial strategy to build the battery factory capacity needed to secure the automotive sector for decades to come.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I have now to announce the result of today’s deferred Division on the Adjournment, summer, conference and Christmas recess motion. The Ayes were 395 and the Noes were 5, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 13th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Neill]

The difficulty that my hon. Friend has is that that is an assertion. I am not sure that, as yet, we have had set out to the House the evidence base that the Government say they have and are working on. I referred the Foreign Secretary to that point on Second Reading, asking when we would see the evidence base that will set out the Government’s case and their reasoning.

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend will recall that the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) raised the issue of the necessity standard applying in a context where a state has not contributed to that state of necessity. Does he feel that that provision has been activated or in some sense triggered by the present situation?

[Sir Robert Neill]

That is, of course, the fourth limb of the five-limb tests—that an essential interest of the EU member states should not be imperilled. I have to say that I do not think an essential interest is imperilled by this Bill, because it is clear that the risk of leakage into the EU single market has been minimal, even with the way the protocol is operating—or partially operating—now. That is probably the strongest ground that the Government have. But there is then the argument as to whether the party that invokes the doctrine of necessity has in some way contributed to the situation. I think that is more finely balanced, in fairness. I have seen the briefing from the Bingham Centre that suggests that that test is not met either. I am more prepared to give the Government some slack in that regard, but we need the evidence for that as well. After all, at the end of the day, the Government agreed the protocol—not long ago, in 2020—and did so on the basis of intending to operate it in good faith. That, of course, is a rather important reputation that this country has. My right hon. Friend is right to flag up those stages, but even before we get to them, I am not at all sure that we yet have the evidence before the House to justify the provision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Ellis]

If I may, I will make some progress. The amendment is well-intentioned, but I hope the Committee will understand that our priority as a Government is to proceed in a way that best supports the functioning of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and its institutions, which in this case means giving certainty to the people of Northern Ireland that the regime we propose under the Bill will be in place as quickly as possible. That is why I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst to withdraw the amendment.

[Jesse Norman]

Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), is the concession by the Government that “urgent does not mean immediate” not a plain acknowledgement of the fact that necessity does not apply, because it means there is no grave and immediate peril, which is one of the tests for necessity?

[Michael Ellis]

My right hon. Friend is conflating two issues. I will come to necessity in due course.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst also mentioned article 16, and the reality is that it does not solve the problem at hand. It would only treat the symptoms without fixing the root cause of the problems. We need a comprehensive and durable solution to this urgent problem and certainty for the businesses and people of Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

It has been a splendid debate, and it is my happy privilege to stand as the thorn between two legal roses in my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the acuity of whose interventions has been noted by the House, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Sir Geoffrey Cox), the former Attorney General, with his soaring rhetoric and legal genius.

I will be brief. Everyone in this House recognises, I am sure, that it is vital to make the Northern Ireland protocol work better; that the EU, as described and discussed today, has been intransigent and could do with more direct input from our friends and allied member states, France, Germany, Holland and the rest; and that we need an improved and supported political settlement and situation in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, however, for reasons contemplated and discussed today, and which I will briefly summarise, this Bill is not the answer.

It has been properly pointed out that the doctrine of necessity does not apply in anything like the way the Government describe it. I am not a lawyer, but even I can see that when the Minister concedes at the Dispatch Box that immediacy is not at stake and is not implied by the conception of urgency that the Government wish to deploy. In breaching international law, for the reasons that my right hon. and learned Friend the former Attorney General set out, the Bill breaks the general principle that promises must be kept. However, that is itself an unwritten principle of the British constitution, so this Bill is also a contravention of our constitution. Of course, it appears to breach article 5 of the withdrawal agreement, in which both the UK and EU state that they will faithfully enact the measures to fulfil their obligations arising from the new agreement. Finally, as has been pointed out, the wide powers contemplated under clause 4 are themselves are in clear conflict with the rule of law in the ministerial discretion that they confer.

In principle, this Bill is extremely unwise to say the least, but it is also, just in pragmatic terms, misguided and likely to be counterproductive. As my right hon. and learned Friend mentioned, there is no long-term solution to be reached by a unilateral attempt to impose one side’s will on a shared international treaty. Of course, there is no reason to think that this will change the EU’s behaviour in relation of Northern Ireland. Why should it? The EU’s concern is that the UK has been untrustworthy, and far from allaying that concern, the Bill actively reinforces it. If the EU made a concession in response—if by chance it struck a new agreement with the UK on the basis of the pressure supposedly conferred by this legislation—why should it believe that the UK would then abide by such an agreement? That whole rationale would already have been destroyed. Of course, for reasons already discussed today, this is merely the beginning of the potential trouble involved.

The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) properly talked about the integrity of the United Kingdom, and he was absolutely right to flag that up. However, another kind of integrity is at stake here: the integrity of our overall British patriotic desire to project ourselves as a nation with a historic willingness to lead in matters of reputation and international law. That integrity is being put at risk by this piece of legislation.

I am not going to support amendment 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, not because it is not a perfectly fine piece of drafting, but because this Bill is unamendably bad, in my judgment. I very much hope that this House will not see it through, and that if it does, the Bill will be rejected on Second Reading by the other Chamber.

[Layla Moran]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), and I completely agree with him. I and the Liberal Democrats intend to vote against this Bill when it eventually comes to its Third Reading. I will speak today particularly to new clause 8 and its paving amendment 26.

First, however, I want to put on record my huge disappointment that the Bill is in Committee today because, since Second Reading, we have had a lame duck Prime Minister and a Foreign Secretary who cancelled her meeting with G20 leaders in Bali, where she should have been, and instead came back to start her leadership campaign. This Bill is an incredibly controversial move, and it would have been right and proper for it to have gone away for a while—under the definition of “urgent” that the Minister put forward, that would have seemed to make sense—and then come back when it is clear what direction the Government really want to take. Make no mistake, this Bill is going to affect our standing on the world stage.

My amendments relate to the release of the legal advice. It is absolutely right and proper that the Conservative leadership election has turned our eyes to honesty, integrity and, in particular, trust following what has happened with the current Prime Minister, and that is what my amendments do. They ask the Government, “What have you got to hide?” If there is nothing to hide, they should publish the full legal advice and trust this House to scrutinise it properly.

I urge Government Members to look carefully at what the Attorney General has said since giving her advice on this Bill, because she is also running to be leader of the Conservative party, and she has suggested pulling out of the European Court of Human Rights. As we know, the Court underpins the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. The Attorney General does not seem to understand how that correlates with the Good Friday agreement, yet we are relying on her legal advice. I would suggest that that is nothing we can rely on. We understand from newspapers that the Government shopped around for legal advice, and reportedly they even spoke to a former adviser of President Trump. However, if they have nothing to hide, they should publish the advice.

In the Minister’s response to my question earlier, he said the Government may well go to litigation over this and may well be taken to court over the definitions in relation to the doctrine of necessity. As a reason for advice not to be published, he said:

“We know that, famously, from the Labour Government a couple of decades ago, when there was an enormous controversy about that.”

That suggests that we should not see the legal advice because of what happened following the release of the advice on the Iraq war, but we know from the inquiry that that is nonsensical because the Government in that case did have something to hide and were found out later. If this Government want to get the trust of Parliament and do not want to have egg on their face in the international courts, they should release the advice. I urge them to support amendment 26, which I hope—by your leave, Dame Eleanor—we can push to a vote later.

Ukraine

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 24th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We will be bringing it forward on Monday, and I am grateful for the support of the Opposition. We want immediately to start cracking down on these individuals.

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

The whole House will welcome the enhanced package of sanctions that the Prime Minister has announced today, but may I raise the question of football, much beloved of Russian hearts, and in particular issues of ownership, property and shareholdings, and the future participation of Russian clubs in international matches?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is completely right. The Russians attach a great deal of sentimental importance to football, and they hope to hold the UEFA championship final in St Petersburg. I cannot for the life of me see how that can currently go ahead.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

It is a delight to address my beloved former colleague on the Treasury Bench. Is she aware of the extraordinary work being done in the new model of technology and engineering in a radical new form of tertiary educational institution in Hereford that blends further education and higher education with a commitment to the enfranchisement, support and development of women in engineering?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I was not aware of the fantastic work that is taking place in Hereford, although I suspect that the Minister for Women and Equalities, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), is. I would particularly love to hear more about this, and I would be very happy for my right hon. Friend to write to me and share more about what is taking place there.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

We absolutely agree that having a smart and pragmatic approach is the only way that we will be able to uphold the Good Friday agreement for all communities in Northern Ireland. Notwithstanding what the reporting has said, I know, having been in Carbis Bay with the Prime Minister and the President, that the President understands our view and we have explained our position, as well his taking into account what the EU has said.

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

The House will know that the River Wye is one of the most beautiful rivers in our country and also a priceless national asset, yet it is being threatened by phosphate pollution. Will my right hon. Friend press colleagues in the Government and in No. 10 to work with us to push the agencies and other interested bodies to a long-term integrated plan to clean up the River Wye?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Of course, the Government understand, and my right hon. Friend champions eloquently, the importance of the River Wye. We will do everything we can to support him with preserving it for future generations.

Budget Resolutions

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I do not agree with that either. We had to make some difficult decisions when the crash happened and they were the right decisions. As the Chancellor set out today, because we made those difficult decisions and put the economy in good shape, we are well positioned to deal with the challenge facing the country and the challenge of tackling the coronavirus.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)]

Might it be worth my reminding my right hon. Friend that bank leverage, which had been 20 times capital for 40 years between 1960 and 2000, on average, went from 20 times capital to 50 times capital in seven years under Labour? Therefore, when the bank crisis struck, it was all the worse because the whole sector was wildly over-leveraged.

[Mr Harper]

Following on from what the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) said, that was a very sophisticated intervention from my right hon. Friend, and I thank him for it.

The Chancellor rightly opened his Budget statement by setting out the challenge facing the economy from the coronavirus. The combination of what was set out this morning by the Bank of England was welcome—both the interest rate cut and, more importantly, the credit easing, enabling the financial sector to be able to support sound businesses that are fundamentally in good shape but that are going to have an economic shock caused by the coronavirus, both on the demand and supply sides. It was very encouraging to hear of the close co-operation between an independent central bank and the Treasury to make sure that both fiscal and monetary policy are being used to deal with the crisis.

Both individuals and businesses listening to the Budget will welcome the many changes that the Chancellor set out—the three big areas he set will be very welcome across the country, including in my constituency. One key issue that he set out, which I think is on the front page of the Red Book and which he referred to when he was doing some media interviews at the weekend, was trust. On Sunday, when he was interviewed on the BBC, the Chancellor said that the Budget

“is going to first and foremost deliver on our promises to the British people.”

That is the headline on the front of the Red Book. He went on:

“I think trust in politics has been undermined by the things that have happened over the past few years. I’m very keen to make sure that we rebuild that trust and that starts with doing the things that we said we would do.”

That means keeping our promises. As you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, we made clear commitments in our manifesto: to keep costs down for small businesses by cutting their taxes; to borrow not to fund day-to-day spending but to invest in infrastructure—we saw that in the Budget; and to make sure that debt would be lower at the end of the Parliament. We see the percentage of debt to GDP—the measure that really matters—falling across the Budget period.

We also made it clear that we want to make sure that people get to keep more of the money that they earn and that we keep their bills low, whoever they are. We said that we would not raise the rates of income tax, national insurance or VAT. I welcome those promises and am pleased that we have kept them.

However, the issue is not just the letter of those promises, but their spirit. Any voter at the election in December had a clear choice: a party that promised to keep taxes low or the Labour party, which was clearly going to raise them. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies made clear, it was not credible for Labour to say that it would raise them only for the top 5% of earners if it was to spend what it was proposing.

We have to keep the spirit of our promises and not have any disguised tax rises later in the cycle. I mention that because I spotted a report in The Sun about how we might want to raise taxes to pay for social care. It talked about a 2.5% social care tax. I support increasing the resources going into social care, but I do not want us to increase taxes to pay for it. To voters, a tax of 2.5% on their income will be seen as an income tax. I have no idea whether the report is true or idle speculation, but I counsel Ministers that we need to keep our promises. We said we would not increase the rate of income tax, and we should stick to that approach. I also note that the Chancellor’s proposals—other than the coronavirus proposals, which obviously were introduced late in the day—meet the fiscal rules, with a current Budget surplus in each year of the forecast period. I welcome that.

I want to welcome a couple of the specific measures. The fuel duty freeze is important in a constituency such as mine, where people have to use a car to get around easily and there are not a lot of other choices. I also welcome the exemption in respect of keeping red diesel for farmers, for which the Chancellor particularly credited my right hon. Friend the Government Chief Whip—whose proper title is Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, demonstrating the value of that role. As a previous holder of it, I thank him for his efforts in ensuring that those who produce our food and drink are rewarded by having their costs kept under control.

In my response to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill, I said that the tax burden remains at a 50-year high. That is why we need to make sure we keep spending under control. I am pleased that we are going to keep current spending under control, although it is very sensible to borrow for investment in infrastructure. For Conservatives, living within our means should not come to an end: we have to remember that we are spending not our money but taxpayers’, and we have to spend it wisely. Clearly, we need to make sure that we grow the economy faster. I welcome what the Chancellor said about how some of the long-term investment that we are introducing will improve the long-term productivity of the economy by 2.5%, which is what the OBR has said. That investment and the other Budget measures will add half a percentage point to our growth rate.

One way that we will grow the economy is by levelling up across the economy, getting all parts of the United Kingdom to be as productive as London. As a Unionist, I mean not only Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, but all parts of England from the south-west to the north-east, and from Cornwall to County Durham. I am very pleased to see that the Government have started to do that with the proposals that they have set out.

In the south-west, we have some important priorities. I was very pleased to see the investment in the A303, which was one of the key asks from my colleagues in the south-west, and in the A417 missing link in Gloucestershire. We also prioritised digital connectivity, and I was pleased to see the £5 billion to be invested in faster broadband through fibre to the premises and the measures to improve connectivity for mobile telephony with the shared rural network, which is very important in areas such as mine. Education funding is also absolutely critical if we are to improve skills. Moving to a national funding formula is incredibly valuable, as is the investment in our further education colleges.

Finally, we welcome the investment in flood defences. About 73 homes in my constituency and many more across the catchment area of the River Severn were affected by the recent floods, so that £5.2 billion investment is very welcome, as is the £2.5 billion for repairing the potholes in our roads, which will be incredibly important for motorists. Overall, I welcome this Budget. The Chancellor, as a new Chancellor facing some very difficult headwinds, put together a fantastic package. As such it should be welcomed by everyone not just on the Conservative Benches but from across the House, and by the British people.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Wednesday 12th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

10. What discussions the Government have had with oil and gas companies on support for North sea industry.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Jesse Norman)]

The Government continue to work closely with industry, both directly and through the Oil and Gas Authority, to drive investment and support jobs in the North sea.

[Mark Menzies]

Revenue from North sea oil has dropped by more than £10 billion over the past two years. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that public services in Scotland do not suffer as a result of this shortfall in public revenue?

[Jesse Norman]

As my colleague rightly notes, there has been a shock in the oil and gas industry resulting from global changes. As the latest public finance figures show, being part of the UK protects living standards in Scotland. The drop in revenues has been offset by a vigorous programme of Government support in tax relief and allowances, as well as in a host of other areas.

[Graham Evans]

The supply of home-grown feed stocks is vital to the Cheshire chemicals industry and is in part reliant on the success of North sea oil and gas. Can the Minister assure the House that the Government will continue to take steps to support the many jobs in our foundation industries that depend very much on this sector?

[Jesse Norman]

My colleague is absolutely right to highlight this issue. The UK chemicals sector is a vital part of our manufacturing industry and an important contributor to the economy. The Government are working closely with the industry to implement the desire to grow gross value added by £105 billion by 2030, and a key element of that will be delivering competitive energy and feed stock supplies.

[Callum McCaig (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

Industry has been crystal clear that more work needs to be done to boost exploration. Will the Government bring forward exploration incentives in the autumn statement to protect employment and boost production?

[Jesse Norman]

Exploration remains very important. The continental shelf is depleting. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Government have taken some serious steps in Aberdeen with the city deal. I will not comment on the autumn statement, but it is an issue of some focus for the Government.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Since Question Time began this morning, five Members on the Scottish National party Benches have asked about membership of the European Union, and two have asked about Scottish jobs. Seven Members on the Conservative Benches wanted to talk about Scottish independence. Which group would the Secretary of State describe as being obsessed with independence?

[Jesse Norman]

I can do no better than to refer the hon. Gentleman to the words of Adam Smith, who said that the Union of 1707 was

“a measure from which infinite good has been derived”

for Scotland.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber. The Minister is a debutante at the Box. He ought to be heard.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Jesse Norman)]

Not quite a debutante, Mr Speaker—we can only hope.

The steel industry in Scotland remains a vital part of the UK steel industry as a whole. The Government continue to engage with steel companies, devolved Governments and trade unions to ensure a sustainable and prosperous steel industry for the UK.

[Dr Murrison]

Liberty House is taking more than 70% of its new workforce from among former Tata Steel employees, which is good news for Motherwell, and it should be congratulated on that. Will my hon. Friend congratulate the company, in particular, on its apprenticeship programme, which is a positive endorsement of Britain’s engineering future?

[Jesse Norman]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to focus on the Dalzell plate mill, which opened last month under its new owners, Liberty House Group, with the Government’s support. As this illustrates, we have taken clear action to help the industry, for example by securing state aid to compensate for energy costs and through flexibility over EU emissions regulations and many other areas. I also share his delight in the work that has been done on apprenticeships.

[Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)]

During recess, I attended the reopening of the Dalzell works in Motherwell. Will the Minister speak to the Scottish Government about how steel jobs can be saved by putting together a package that really works?

[Jesse Norman]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. The Government stand ready to work together with the Scottish Government on any area that can support and protect Scottish jobs and Scottish industry.

The Prime Minister was asked—

Iraq: Coalition Against ISIL

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Friday 26th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

After six hours and many very good contributions on the substance of this debate, I want to consider the wider constitutional position in which we are placed. During the past decade or two, a convention has started to develop that, except in an emergency, major foreign policy interventions must be pre-approved by a vote in Parliament. The idea springs from honourable motives and it is understandable given the present climate of distrust in politics, but in my judgment it is nevertheless a serious mistake.

It is absolutely right for Parliament to insist on proper democratic accountability where military action is at stake through debates, questions and statements, but the requirement for a prior authorising vote of this House is very different. Yes, it is vital for parliamentarians to maintain the most unreserved communication with their constituents on this matter, as indeed it is on any matter of public importance, but the plain fact is that in matters of foreign policy, with a few signal exceptions, Members of the House are inevitably far less well informed than Ministers who follow and reflect on the issues every day. We do not have the same access to officials and advisers; we are not privy to diplomatic traffic or secret intelligence; and we are not briefed by, and may not demand briefings from, our armed forces. As a large corporate body, we lack the capacity to react quickly and without warning to fast-changing events. The result is delay and a loss of agility and surprise, which ill serves our forces in the field.

[Mr Allen]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jesse Norman]

I will not give way. I am afraid that there is no time.

Moreover, I suggest that as a matter of fundamental constitutional principle, extreme care should be exercised over when or whether the House is asked to vote on such matters in future. It is a basic purpose of Parliament —above all, of this Chamber—to hold the Government to account for their actions. It is for the Government, with all their advantages of preparation, information, advice and timeliness, to act, and it is then for this Chamber to scrutinise that action.

If Parliament itself authorises such action in advance, what then? It gives up part of its power of scrutiny; it binds Members in their own minds, rather than allowing them the opportunity to assess each Government decision on its own merits and circumstances; and instead of being forced to explain and justify their actions, Ministers can always take final refuge in saying, “Well, you authorised it.” Thus, far from strengthening Parliament, it weakens it and the Government: it weakens the dynamic tension between the two sides from which proper accountability and effective policy must derive.

On 3 April 1982, the House was recalled by Mrs Thatcher for the Falklands war debate. It was a Saturday—the first time that the House had been so recalled since Suez. Tempers were high. The atmosphere was one of crisis. The taskforce was about to sail. It was a matter of peace or war. The very sovereignty of this nation was at stake. Yet what was the motion that day? It was:

“That this House do now adjourn.”

When, in calmer days, the Government come to reflect on these proceedings, I hope that they will heed the wisdom in that—

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

European Council

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I have sat with Jean-Claude Juncker around the European Council table for the past four years. I spoke to him last night and, as he put in his manifesto, he wants to address the concerns that Britain has about the European Union. My job as Prime Minister is to hold him to that and make sure that we reform the organisation.

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

I spent Armed Forces day at a very moving service in Hereford cathedral organised by the Royal British Legion. In that spirit, I congratulate the Prime Minister on standing up both for constitutional principle and for the voice of Britain, of reform and of the nation state, and on doing so with one hand tied behind his back by the Labour party—[Interruption]—because of the Nice and Lisbon treaties. [Interruption.] Does he share my view that the real issues are the deep lack of democratic legitimacy embedded in many EU institutions, the need to address popular discontent, as shown in the recent election, and the need for reform that is backed particularly by European allies who see the need for treaty change to secure the eurozone?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We need to battle the view that in Europe the only democratic legitimacy comes through the European Parliament. Our view is of Europe as a collection of nation states working and co-operating together; therefore, a lot of the democratic legitimacy should come through the European Council, made up of the Presidents and Prime Ministers of Europe, who all have a democratic mandate from their own peoples.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Crabb]

We have discussed VAT and tourism on several occasions at Wales questions. The fact remains that if we were to lower VAT on tourism and hospitality in the way that I think the hon. Gentleman is suggesting, somebody else has to pay the shortfall. Taxation will need to be levied elsewhere at a time when we have to bring in some revenue to make further progress on reducing the deficit.

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

2. What discussions he has had with the Department of Health and Ministers of the Welsh Government on facilitating access for patients from Wales and English border areas to hospital services in England.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

3. What discussions he has had with the Department of Health and Ministers of the Welsh Government on facilitating access for patients from Wales and English border areas to hospital services in England.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)]

I recently met the public health Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), and my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) to discuss cross-border health issues. It is essential that we continue to work with the Welsh Government to ensure that patients on both sides of the border have access to the best health services possible.

[Jesse Norman]

Over 20,000 English residents are registered with GP practices in Wales and have been denied access to hospitals of their choice in England. Does the Secretary of State share my view that NHS Wales has seriously overreached itself by denying patients living in England the right to choose where they receive hospital treatment? Does he agree that we urgently need to change the cross-border protocols to ensure that all patients have access to the highest standards of care?

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend will be keenly aware of this issue; as he says, many of his constituents rely on GPs from Wales. Similarly, Hereford hospital is an important hospital for patients from Wales. I entirely agree that the cross-border protocol needs to be made fit for purpose, and my office and the Department of Health are working closely together to that end.