Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jesse Norman and John McDonnell

Thursday 13th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

The fact of the matter is, through both covid and the Barnett formula, the Scottish Government have been funded at levels that vastly exceed those available in England. If one is a Herefordian, as I am, one looks with astonishment at the increased levels of spending north of the border and wishes that, in many ways, a similar rural landscape such as our own were supported as well as that.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

5. Whether he has had recent discussions with relevant stakeholders on proposals for funding the expansion of Heathrow airport.

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

The answer is no.

[John McDonnell]

Well, that answer was succinct, if nothing else. The Minister will know that a new chief executive has been appointed at Heathrow Airport Ltd, and he will inevitably meet that chief executive. When he does, will he take him through the costings of any road and rail infrastructure associated with the proposed development of a third runway? Heathrow has offered £2 billion to cover the cost. The Government’s airports commission calculated the cost at £5 billion, but we now believe that, because of the tunnelling under the M25 and the road links and rail links—in particular, the rail links for western and southern access—the cost of the scheme could be between £10 billion and £20 billion. Will he make it clear to the chief executive of Heathrow that not a penny of taxpayers’ money will go into subsidising the profits of the overseas owners of Heathrow?

[Jesse Norman]

It appears that the right hon. Gentleman knows a lot more about this than I do. Any expansion of Heathrow is a matter for it, as he will know. If that is financed, it will be by private finance for what is a private sector project. The Department has no position on this matter, because at some point the Secretary of State may need to be invited to decide on any development consent order, so we do not take a view.

HMRC Impact Analysis: Customs

Debate between Jesse Norman and John McDonnell

Tuesday 8th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) (Urgent Question)]

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a statement on HMRC’s published impact analysis of introducing new customs legislation and amendments.

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

I am delighted to respond to the right hon. Gentleman’s question. The Government are devoting huge energies, as the House will know, to Brexit preparations. The Prime Minister has stated that the Government’s preference is to leave with a deal, but, if necessary, they will leave without a deal as it is so vital that we get Brexit done and move the country forward. The last thing that businesses need is more uncertainty and delay. A key part of those preparations is to ensure that there is a functioning customs, VAT and excise regime on exit to put the legal underpinnings in place. HMRC has laid 56 regulations to date following last year’s Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 .

To support the latest bunch of statutory instruments, which were debated by this House yesterday, the Government published a third edition of the overarching impact assessment of the movement of goods if the UK leaves the EU without a deal. This updates and builds on previous versions of the impact assessment, which were published in December 2018 and February 2018. The new version provides updates to cover the September 2019 regulations, including transitional and other arrangements for safety and security declaration requirements for the period after exit; further temporary customs and excise easements to extend the transitional arrangements after exit; further VAT data-gathering powers to specify the type of information that was collected from postal operators; and, finally, various technical amendments and transitional provisions.

As I have said, our preference is very much for a deal, but the Government continue to ensure that this country is ready for no deal and that the impact on business is minimised as far as possible, which is why we have introduced a series of easements for traders moving goods in the UK to take effect in a no-deal scenario. Those easements, for example, are planned to simplify radically import processes for EU goods, which means that the costs identified in this impact assessment will be mitigated for UK importers. Crucially, the Government are also working to boost the long-term potential of the economy so that the United Kingdom can seize the opportunities that exist for us outside the EU.

[John McDonnell]

Perhaps I can help the Minister fill in some of the gaps in the statement. The Government’s own assessment shows that their no-deal Brexit policy will introduce

“significant ongoing administrative costs impacting on UK and EU businesses of all sectors.”

It is an avalanche of paperwork descending on British businesses in the form of import, export, safety and security declarations. The burden will cost our business sector an annual £15 billion in administrative costs, and that does not even include the costs of complying with the new VAT procedures, which will hit our vital service companies—all this to pursue the hardest possible Tory no-deal Brexit.

We have heard the Prime Minister’s previous crude dismissal of British business. Now we are seeing his words become Government policy. Does the Minister not understand that this only compounds the uncertainty brought about by this Government’s failure to secure a deal that protects the UK economy? A senior No. 10 source, who I most believe to be the Prime Minister’s adviser—well, I say “adviser”—Dominic Cummings, said:

“We’ll either leave with no deal on 31 October or there will be an election and then we will leave with no deal”,

and that everything to do with the duty of sincere co-operation that we have with the EU partners

“will be in the toilet”.

Does the Minister agree with the priorities set out by No. 10 as a result of that statement? Does he also challenge the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which said today that this would push UK debt to its highest level since the 1960s, soaring to 90% of national income?

The reckless incompetence of this Government just knows no bounds, does it? At a moment of national crisis, this Government pose a threat to their own people and the economy they rely upon. Has the Minister any idea of the scale of the destruction of confidence in the British economy that this Government’s stated policy is bringing about?

[Jesse Norman]

This is a long document at some 45 pages or so, but I would have hoped that the right hon. Gentleman could have made it to page 9. He claims that the cost to British business will be £15 billion, but it says perfectly clearly at the bottom of page 9:

“The latest…estimate for the annual administrative burden…is £7.5 billion (updated to reflect 2017 data)”.

I am in no sense happy about that—[Interruption.] I am just correcting the record. The right hon. Gentleman said £15 billion, when in fact the figure is £7.5 billion. That figure is, of course, prior to any mitigations that might be put in place by the Government.

Let me turn to the right hon. Gentleman’s other concerns. He criticised the Government for, as he puts it, failing to secure a deal. All his party had to do was support the perfectly sensible series of deals that have been put before this Parliament, and it would have a deal.

I am not going to comment on unsourced speculation of the kind mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. Let me just remind the House that when this Government’s predecessor came into office in 2010, debt was at a peacetime high thanks to the previous Labour Government. The deficit was at almost 10% and, interestingly, inequality under the Labour Government was significantly higher than it is today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jesse Norman and John McDonnell

Tuesday 1st October 2019 Commons Chamber

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

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I have addressed the substance of it, but let me make a point about Sir Amyas Morse. I think that Sir Amyas is a superb choice. As my hon. Friend may be aware, in a debate in the House of Commons on 6 March 2019, the Chamber united across the parties in praise of Sir Amyas. The Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), called him

“a fearless advocate for what is good in the public sector and for challenging Governments of whatever party”.

The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), said that he was not only “unfailingly courteous”, but had

“an intelligence of steel. He has a knack for calling out obfuscation, fudge and imprecision”,

and

“a reputation for being completely fair.”—[Official Report, 6 March 2019; Vol. 655, c. 1004-05.]

He is a very good choice to lead this review.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Will the Chancellor give the House a quick fact-check of his speech yesterday? The Conservatives have cut funding for buses by £640 million a year. Yesterday, he announced nothing new; he simply reannounced £220 million from the spending review. His Government have cut £900 million a year from annual youth services budgets. Yesterday, he offered £500 million, possibly as a one-off. The National Infrastructure Commission says that we need £33 billion to roll out full-fibre broadband. Yesterday, he offered £5 billion. All of those promises will count for nothing if there is a no-deal Brexit. Has he not just followed the Cummings code: grab a headline, possibly wrap it around a bus and ignore the truth? But there is one figure that I would like to ask him about: 120,000. What significance does the figure 120,000 have for him?

Select Committee on Governance of the House

Debate between Jesse Norman and John McDonnell

Wednesday 10th September 2014 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House welcomes the Speaker’s announcement on 1 September of a pause in the process of appointment of a new Clerk of the House and Chief Executive, to give time for further consideration; and accordingly determines that:

(a) there shall be a select committee, called the House of Commons Governance Committee, to consider the governance of the House of Commons, including the future allocation of the responsibilities for House services currently exercised by the Clerk of the House and Chief Executive;

(b) the Committee report to the House by 12 January 2015;

(c) the Committee shall have the powers given to select committees related to government departments under paragraph 4(a) and 4(b) of Standing Order No. 152;

(d) Mr Jack Straw be the Chair of the Committee;

(e) the Committee shall consist of seven other backbench members, to be elected by parties in the proportion of three Conservative, two Labour and one Liberal Democrat, together with one representative of the other parties represented in the House; the parties shall forward their nominations to the Chair of the Committee of Selection by 14 October and any motion made in the House on behalf of the Committee of Selection by the Chair or another member of the Committee shall be treated as having been made in pursuance of Standing Order No. 121(2) for the purposes of Standing Order No. 15(1)(c).

It is an honour to open a debate on a motion to which so many distinguished Members have added their names—the co-sponsors include the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), the right hon. Members for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) and for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart)—and which has commanded support at all levels throughout the House.

The role of the Clerk of the House dates back to at least 1363. Today, the Clerk serves, first, as the House’s adviser on all aspects of procedure, practice and privilege and as the editor of “Erskine May”; secondly, as the chief executive of the House service and chair of the management board; and also, importantly, as accounting officer, as corporate officer, and as the head of the Clerks department, responsible for some 800 members of staff.

The motion is straightforward. It welcomes the announcement by the Speaker of a pause in the current recruitment to the post of Clerk; it establishes a new time-limited Select Committee to consider the governance of the House; it nominates the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) as Chair of that Committee; and it outlines the powers of the Committee, its reporting date and the election of its members. The debate arises because of widespread concern among Members in all parts of the House that the process governing the appointment of the next Clerk of the House was seriously flawed.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

I should be delighted.

[John McDonnell]

I merely ask for clarification. Does the hon. Gentleman see the new Committee as a time-limited exercise, or as a permanent body?

[Jesse Norman]

As the motion makes clear, the Committee will be time-limited and report in January next year.

There has been some misunderstanding, and much heated discussion, of the clerkship. Those are issues to which I have no desire to add, but the following facts are not in dispute. First, the chosen candidate, Ms Carol Mills, an administrator in the Australian Parliament, was not qualified for the specifically constitutional and procedural functions exercised by the Clerk. Secondly—

BBC (Proposed Cuts)

Debate between Jesse Norman and John McDonnell

Thursday 1st December 2011 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

There are always benefits from a process like this. My concern is about the long-term future and some of the short-term implications that the hon. Gentleman himself pointed out. We should not wander into this debate naively, because there is a separate agenda, which was set by James Murdoch at that time. The tone of sheer arrogance in that speech somewhat contrasts with the tone of his performance in the hearings by the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. In that speech, he proclaimed his advocacy of Darwinism, and he said that he believed in natural selection in all things, particularly within the media market. It was like Gordon Gekko in “Wall Street” saying, “Greed…is good.” James Murdoch proclaimed that the law of the jungle worked. It was almost Orwellian. I shall quote him exactly:

“There is an inescapable conclusion that we must reach if we are to have a better society. The only reliable, durable and perpetual guarantor of independence of the media is profit.”

That is exactly the agenda that was set. It is that philosophy in other sections of the media that has led us all the way down to the Leveson inquiry and the descent of parts of the media into the gutter. This is not a conspiracy theory. I do not need to mention the 11 occasions on which the Prime Minister has met Murdoch’s News International. I do not need to mention the six occasions on which the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport has done so, or the three occasions on which the Deputy Prime Minister has done so. I do not think that it is part of those meetings; I do not think that it is part of a conspiracy. I simply think that the Government share that agenda.

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

Until the hon. Gentleman began to personalise this and mention individuals, I was prepared to share some of his concerns about the Murdoch speech and some of the claims that were made. Two things should be perfectly clear. First, many Government Members feel very warmly towards the BBC, and want to enfranchise and support the tradition of public service broadcasting, which it does better than anyone else in the world. That comes not just from Back-Bench Members but, I am thrilled to say, from the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister.

The second thing is—